THE  ETHEL  CARR  PEACOCK 
MEMORIAL  COLLECTION 

Matris  amort  monumentutn 


TRINITY  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

DURHAM,   N.  C. 
1903 


Gift  of  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Dred  Peacock 


I 


» 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2011  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/trialofdamcdougaOOwhit 


I 
I 

I 


The  Trial    of  D.  A.  McBougald   for  the  Murder 'of 
Simeon  eonoley,  at  Fayetteville,  N.  C. 


Z  W.  WHITEHEAD  AND  HAMILTON  l^cMILLAN. 


Walter  Watson 


MANUFACTURER   OF 


■'r  *1 


Puller~3  sizes. 


Open  Hacker-  .- 
3  sizes. 


m 


II 


Soliia' steel  Dipper. 


Turpentine  and  Coopers' 
TOOLS 


Timber  Marker. 


Wfitson's  Patent 
Combination  Scra- 
per and  Sliovedown. 


Fayetteville,  N.  C. 


Open    Hacker   with 

Patent  Fastener, 

Handled  ready  for 

use. 


P 
History  of  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


On  the  eventful  night  of  April  21st,  1891,  when  "darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep. "  and  the  shades  of  evening  had  fallen  thick  and  fast  hither  and  thither,  Simeon 
Conoley,  an  aged,  honorable  and  highly  esteemed  citizen  of  Ilobeson  County,  while 
resting  "under  his  own  vine  and  fig  tree"  from  the  exurtions  and  fatigue  of  a  day's 
laborious  toil  was  decoyed  from  the  sacred  precincts  of  his  family  fireside  to  au  open 
field  but  a  few  hundred  yards  distant,  and  there  most  brutally  assassinated,  by  a  man 
giving  his  name  as  Lum  Johnson,  wearing  a  long  duster  and  an  old  hat,  whom  Mr. 
Conoley,  in  the  goodness  of  bis  heart,  bad  kindly  proffered  to  show  the  way  to  the 
house  of  a  Mr.  Wilkes,  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  off,  in  response  to  the  stranger's 
inquiries  for  Mr.  Wilkes's  place  of  residence.  Leaving  the  house  tngether,  and  going 
in  the  direction  of  Mr.  Wilkes's,  they  had  been  gone  but  a  few  minutes  when  two  pistol- 
shots  rang  out  in  rapid  succession.  There  being  nothing  unur^ual  in  firing  off 
pistols  and  guns  in  the  neighborhood  after  nightfall,  the  reports  excite. I  little  or  no 
suspicion  with  even  the  immediate  members  of  the  family,  and  nothing  was  known  of 
this  heinous  crime  until  ^ext  morning,  when  the  lifeless  body  of  Simeon  Conoley — 
cold  in  death,  and  pierced  through  the  head  with  two  bullets  from  a  38-calibre  pistol — 
was  found  by  the  roadside.  From  family  to  friend  and  neighbor  the  news  spread  like 
wildfire,  indignation  on  the  part  of  the  people  keeping  pace  with  the  rapid  dissemina- 
tion of  the  shocking  news,  and  gathering  in  volume  as  the  bloody  tragedy  was  told  and 
repeated.  Being  a  quiet,  inoffensive  citizen,  and  almost  without  an  enemy  in  the 
known  world,  everyone  appeared  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  the  motive  of  the  murder,  or 
to  whom  to  assign  the  das^artlly  deed.  In  due  time  the  coroner  was  called  in  to  per. 
form  his  official  duties,  and,  after  a  patient  hearing  of  all  the  evidence  adduced,  and  a 
careful  investigation  of  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  murder,  the  jury  of  inqiiest 
rendered  a  verdict  that  "Simeon  Conoley  came  to  bis  death  bj'  two  pistol-shots  thi'ough 
the  head,  from  a  38-calibre  pistol  in  the  hands  of  an  unknown  man  calling  himself  Lum 
Johnson." 

An  indignant  and  outraged  community,  and  the  friends  of  the  deceased,  individually 
and  collectively,  addressed  themselves  to  the  arduous  tfisk  of  ferreting  out  the  guilty 
man.  For  the  time  being  the  whole  thing  appeared  to  have  been  enveloped  within  the 
folds  of  a  profound  mystery,  api^arently  as  impenetrable  as  walls  of  adamant. 
Soon,  however,  two  or  three  suspicious  characters  were  arrested  and  taken  before  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  at  Mill  Prong  or  elsewhere,  all  of  whom,  however,  at  the  crucial  test, 
sncceeiled  in  proving  an  nJihi,  or  their  whereabouts  on  that  eventful  night  of  April  21st, 
and  were  accordingly  discharged  for  the  want  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.  For  awhile 
things  and  events  -'pursued  the  even  tenor  of  their  way,"  and  it  seemed  as  though  the 
(jOwardly  assassin  of  Simeon  Conoley  had  succeeded  well  in  covering  up  his  tracks,  and 
that  this  foul  act  must  remain  for  all  time  to  come  a  mystery.  But  "murder 
will  out"  is  an  old  adage  as  ancient  as  the  hills  and  true  as  Holy  Writ,  and  after  the 
lapse  of  a  few  days  it  leaked  out  that  a  negro  saw  D.  A.  McDougald,  of  Laurinburg,  or 
some  one  closely  resembling  him.  washing  in  Lumber  river,  fifteen  miles  away,  early 
one  morning  about  the  time  of  the  murder,  who,  becoming  frightened  at  the  negro's 


2  T  07  3 


2  History  of  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 

appearance,  ran  away,  leaving  the  clothes  by  the  river-side.  As  to  who  the  party  was 
at  first  became  a  matter  of  some  doubt,  and  no  one  could  hardly  bo  found  who  would 
dare  say  Dan.  McDougald  was  a  murderer,  particularly  since  he  disfjlayed  so  much 
anxiety  and  interest  at  his  uncle's  burial  to  ferret  out  the  guilty  party  or  parties,  being 
the  man  to  throw  the  first  shovel  of  dirt  on  his  uncle's  coffin.  Suppositions  developed 
into,  apparently,  realities,  and  circumstances  and  suspicions  only  tended  to  form  a 
practically  unbroken  chain  of  evidence  that  McDougald  was  the  murderer  of  his  uncle, 
Simeon  Conoley.  The  report  rapidly  gained  currency  throughout  the  entire  section,  and 
it  soon  became  evident  that  he  would  be  called  to  account  for  his  whereabouts  on  the 
night  of  April  21st,  '91.  Threats  of  lynching  were  now  and  then  heard,  and  on  or 
about  May  1st  a  warrant  was  issued  for  McDougald's  arrest;  the  officers  went  in  pursuit 
of  him,  but  found  him  not,  for,  hearing  of  what  was  "in  the  wind,"  he  succeeded  in 
getting  the  clothes  from  Campbell  s  Bridge  the  day  before,  on  Tuesday,  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing Friday  boarded  the  Charlotte-bound  train  on  the  Carolina  Central  Railroad  at  a 
water-tank  about  three  hundred  yards  above  the  depot  at  Laurinburg,  for  Charlotte ; 
thence  he  went  to  Greensboro,  Lynchburg,  Louisville,  Ky.,  and  Kansas  City,  Mo., 
continuing  his  flight  to  the  remote  parts  of  Oregon,  where  he  secured  work  on  a  rail- 
road, and  went  under  the  name  of  D.  H.  Laurin.  His  flight  was  taken  as  prima  facie 
evidence  of  his  guilt;  whereupon  the  County  of  Robeson  and  State  of  North  Carolina 
offered  rewards  amounting,  in  round  numbers,  to  nearly  one  thousand  dollars,  A 
Pinkerton  detective  was  soon  put  on  his  track,  who,  after  remaining  in  the  vicinity  a 
ghort  while,  watching  the  mails,  &c  ,  had  his  man  spotted  inside  of  thirty  days,  whom 
lie  went  in  search  of,  and  found  to  be  D.  A.  McDougald.  In  the  meantime,  the 
grand  jury  of  Robeson  County  had  indicted  McDougald  for  miirder.  At  the  October 
term  of  Robeson  Superior  Coi;rt  he  was  arraigned,  and  pleaded  "not  guilty;"  and, 
npon  an  affidavit  that  he  could  not  get  a  fair  and  impartial  trial  in  that  county.  Judge 
Mclver  ordered  the  case  removed  to  Cumberland. 

The  array  of  counsel  on  both  sides  was  large,  and  embraced  some  of  the  best  legal 
talent  in  North  Carolina,  as  the  proceedings  further  on  will  show.  For  the  defence 
there  were  Maj.  John  D.  Shaw,  of  Rockingham,  Col.  VV.  F.  French  and  Capt.  W,  S. 
Norment,  of  Lumberton,  John  D.  Shaw,  Jr.,  of  Laurinburg,  Hon.  Jas.  C.  MacRae  and 
John  G.  Shaw,  of  Fayetteville,  while  the  State  was  ably^epresented  by  Solicitor  Frank 
McNeill,  of  Rockingham,  Neill  Archie  McLean  and  Hon.  Alfred  Rowland,  of  Lumber- 
ton,  and  W.  H.  Neal,  Esq.,  of  Laurinburg.  • 


THE  TRIAL  OF  D.  A.  MCDOUGALD 


MURDER  OF  SIMEON  CONOLEY. 


Promptly  at  10  o'clock  oa  Wednesday  morning  of  the  November  term  of  Cumberland 
Superior  Court,  his  Honor  Judge  James  D.  Mclver  presiding,  the  case  of  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald  for  the  murder  of  his  uncle,  Simeon  Conoley,  was  taken  up,  and  the  following 
jury  impanneled: 

G.  F.  Talbot,  John  Roddick,  George  A.  O'Hanlon,  D.  K.  McNeill.  S.  P.  Denning, 
D.  A,  Geddie,  Bunyan  Hales,  G.  S.  Gibson,  J.  A.  Wade,  11.  A.  Godwin,  Thos.  Lewis, 
A.  D.  McNeill. 

After  the  administration  of  the  oath  to  the  jurors,  and  the  arrangement  of  certain 
other  preliminaries,  witnesses  were  sworn  in,  and  the  testimony  commenced  as  follows: 

EVIDENCE. 


Wednesday  —  Afternoon  Session. 

Dr.  R.  F.  Lewis  was  the  first  wit- 
ness called,  who  testified  that  he  knew 
Simeon  Conoley,  and  last  saw  him  at 
his  mother's  honse,  dead,  on  the  morn- 
ing of  April  22nd;  said  that  he  was  a 
practicing  phj'sician,  graduated  in 
medicine  in  1859;  was  a  member  of  the 
State  Medical  Societ\^;  had  examined 
thebody  of  Conole}-,  and  found  that  two 
pistol-balls  had  been  shot  through  his 
head,  one  ball  entering  just  above  the 
right  ear,  and  the  other  over  the  left 
temple,  causing  death;  said  that  the 
balls  were  of  the  size  of  3S-calibre;  that 
one  of  the  balls  lodged  in  Conoley's 
hat,  but  neither  was  badly  battered; 
that  the  balls  were  handed  him  by  a 
young  Mr.  Conoley;  that  he  saw  the 
corpse  for  the  first  time  at  the  house 
to  which  it  had  been  removed. 

Upon  cross-examination.  Dr.  Lewis 
said  he  examined  the  body  of  Conoley 
on  the  22nd  day  of  April  last,  but  that 
the  killing  had  been  done  on  the  night 
of  the  21st. 


I      A,  J.  CoTTiKGHAM  was  next  intro- 

I  duced.    Said  he  knew  McDougald;  saw 

him  on  April  21st  last  on  freight  train, 

with  himself  and  others,  from  Laurin- 

burg  to  Maxton,  at  which  place  they 

got  off;  had  duster  and  black  satchel. 

Ci'oss-examined:     Witness    Raid    he 

I  was  certain  the  satchel  was  black,  and 

that  he  had  a  duster;  that  among  the 

parties   he   remembered   on   the   train 

from  Laurinburg  to  Maxton  were  Mr. 

McXair  and  Conductor  Burnett;  to  the 

best    of   his    recollection    McDougald 

!  wore  his  du.ster  on  the  train;  that  he 

!  got  oflfat  Maxton  on  Tuesday  morning 

!  about  7  o'clock;  recollected  distinctly 

]  that  McDougald  did  not  wear  whiskers, 

only  moustache;  that  it  was  three  or 

four    days    after    this    had   happened 

before  he  heard  that  he  was  charged 

with  the  murder;  that  he  was  dressed 

in  a  black  suit,  and  got  off  the  train  at 

Maxton  on  the  morning  of  April  21st. 

The  next  witness  was  Luther  Mc- 

CoRMiCK,  who  testified  that  he  had 

known  McDougald  for  nearly  twenty 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 


years;  saw  him  on  the  morning  of 
April  2ist  last,  at  Maxton,  upon  arrival 
of  train  from  Laurinburg;  shook  hands 
with  him,  and  invited  him  up  to  his 
house;  was  close-shaved,  except  mous- 
tache; that  he  (McCormick)  kept  hotel 
in  Maxton,  and  usuall}'  met  all  trains; 
that  MeDougald  said  he  wanted  to  get 
off  on  Fa3'etteville  train ;  had  a  duster 
on  arm,  and  black  satchel,  and  two  or 
three  bundles  tied  up  in  a  newspaper; 
wanted  to  leave  bundles  in  McCor- 
mick's  office,  but  was  advised  to  leave 
them  with  the  agent  of  the  railroad. 
Witness  further  testified  that  at  this 
juncture  they  separated,  going  in  oppo- 
site directions;  saw  MeDougald  next 
on  April  22nd,  about  11  o'clock,  sitting 
on  engine  of  Maxton,  Little  Rock  & 
Alma  Railroad,  and  again  in  front  of 
Groom's  drug-store. 

Upon  cross-examination  witness  said : 
I  live  in  Maxton,  and  keep  hotel  on 
Fayetteville  side  of  C.  C.  R.  R.;  saw 
MeDougald,  as  above  stated,  soon  after 
arrival  of  C.  C.  train  from  Laurinburg, 
and  talked  with  him;  MeDougald  had 
moustache;  said  he  wanted  to  get  off 
on  Fayetteville  train;  he  had  a  satchel 
and  duster  and  two  or  three  bundles; 
was  positive  he  had  two,  and  thought 
he  had  three;  was  certain  he  saw  Me- 
Dougald on  the  2ist  and  22nd  of  April 
last;  that  he  was  on  the  Maxton,  Little 
Rock  &  Alma  R.  R.  engine  on  22nd; 
thought  Mr.  Wicker,  the  engineer,  was 
in  the  cab  with  him;  did  not  see  any 
bundles,  and  did  not  shake  hands 
with  him  at  that  place. 

E.  H.  Cole  examined:  Am  section- 
master  on  Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley 
Railway.  April  2  ist  was  at  tank  about 
400  j^ards  above  the  crossing;  was  there 
when  the  train  passed;  saw  a  man  at 
the  tank,  did  not  know  him  (asked  if 
prisoner  at  the  bar  was  the  man;  ques- 
tion objected  to);  has  an  opinion  about 
the  matter;  thinks  it  was  the  defend- 
ant; the  man  asked  witness  what  time 
the  Fa3'etteville  train  passed;  wanted 
to  know  if  it  would  stop  at  the  tank 
long  enough  for  him  to  get  aboard; 
witness  asked  his  name — replied  it  was 
MeDougald,  lived  at  or  .near  Laurin- 
burg; asked  if  he  was  a  relative  of 
Capt.  MeDougald,  of  Cumberland;  he 
replied  "No;"  witness  thought  the 
man  had  a  duster,  valise  and  bundle; 
the  man  went  off  towards  the  tank; 
saw  him  no  more. 

Cross-examined:  Could  not  swear 
now  that  prisoner  was  that  man;  first 


saw  him  coming  from  direction  of  Cape 
Fear  and  Yadkin  Valley  R.  R. 

Thos.  Smith  examined:  Is  employed 
by  section-master  Cole;  was  with  him 
at  the  tank  when  he  had  a  conversa- 
tion with  MeDougald;  know  that  it 
was  before  Conoley  was  killed;  Me- 
Dougald boarded  the  train  for  Fa3'ette- 
ville  at  the  water-tank;  had  a  duster 
and  possibly  an  overcoat. 

Cross-examined:  Could  not  swear 
exactly  what  daj'  this  was;  the  man 
had  an  oil-cloth  coat  and  duster;  was 
a  spare-made  man,  with  only  a  mous- 
tache— don't  know  the  color;  had  on  a 
black  suit. 

T.  E.  Phillips  examined:  Has 
known  MeDougald  for  several  years; 
saw  him  in  Maxton  the  clay  Conoley 
was  killed,  at  the  water-tank;  had  a 
mud-colored  duster  and  what  he  sup- 
posed to  be  a  valise;  had  only  a  mous- 
tache. 

Cross-examined:  Thinks  he  has 
known  MeDougald  six  or  seven  years; 
got  to  water-tank  earU'  in  the  morning; 
saw  MeDougald;  said  "Hallo,  Mack! 
what  are  5^ou  doing  here?"  Mack 
replied:  "I  am  going  down  the  road." 
Had  a  valise  of  medium  size,  with 
duster  lying  across  it;  left  MeDougald 
sitting  at  tank;  witness  was  on  an 
extra,  distributing  cars;  saw  MeDou- 
gald again  on  freight  train,  about  10 
o'clock,  when  it  overtook  witness's 
train  at  Red  Springs;  saw  other  pas- 
sengers on  the  coach,  but  no  one  on 
the  platform  but  MeDougald.  [This 
freight  train  has  an  accommodation 
car  for  local  travel. — Reporter.] 

W.  O.  LocKAMY  examined:  Was 
conductor  on  freight,  and  took  on  a 
passenger  at  tank  near  Maxton,  but 
told  him  he  could  get  to  Shandon 
on  the  mail  train  earlier,  but  the  man 
said  he  was  in  no  hurry;  had  some 
kind  of  bundle  with  a  du.ster;  said  he 
was  going  to  Shandon;  had  little  to 
say,  but  looked  down  on  the  floor; 
witness  heard  of  the  murder  of  Conoley 
next  day. 

Cross-exami7ied:  Did  not  know  Me- 
Dougald; certain  he  paid  fare  to  Shan- 
don, but  did  not  see  him  after  he  left 
Wakulla. 

Lizzie  McKay  examined:  Has 
known  MeDougald  since  a  girl;  saw 
him  the  morning  before  Conoley  was 
killed,  near  the  water-tank  at  Maxton, 
about  8  or  9  o'clock;  never  spoke  to 
him,  or  saw  what  he  carried.  [Nothing 
new  on  cross-examination.] 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


SECOND  DAY — MORNING  SESSION. 

Charlotte  Dumas  examined  Lives 
in  Richmond  County;  lived  in  Robeson 
when  Conoley  was  killed;  remembers 
the  killing;  lived  in  Shandon  section- 
house  ;  saw  a  strang-eman  pass  the  house 
after  the  train  arrived;  had  a  white- 
looking  duster  and  a  grip-sack;  went 
in  direction  of  W.  C.  McPhail's;  cer- 
tain that  Conoley  was  killed  that  night; 
thought,  after  the  killing,  of  seeing 
the  strange  man  pass. 

Cross-examined:  Never  had  seen  the 
man  before;  no  uncommon  thing  to  see 
a  stranger;  had  a  whitish  duster,  with 
a  grip-sack  over  his  shoulder;  was  a 
fine-looking  man;  prisoner  bowed;  she 
returned  the  bow. 

J.  F.  LvoN  examined:  Live  at  Gib- 
son Station;  am  a  minister;  know  Mc- 
Dougald  intimately;  saw  prisoner  after 
the  killing  of  Conoley;  on  the  way  to 
the  Di.'^trict  Sundaj-  school  Convention 
at  Rockingham  saw  McDougald  in  a 
rear  car  at  Hamlet;  went  up,  and,  put- 
ting a  hand  on  his  shoulder,  said: 
"Where  are  yon  running  awa\'  to?" 
McDougald  made  no  reply,  but  looked 
startled;  I  said:  "  I  hope  you  are  going 
to  Rockingham  to  help  sing;"  had  con- 
versation about  his  uncle's  death — 
about  the  tracks  seen  in  the  garden 
back  of  Conoley's  house;  asked  if 
none  of  the  family  savs-  the  man  who 
called  his  uncle  out  that  night;  Mc- 
Dougald replied  that  his  aunt  and  a 
little  boy  saw  the  man;  he  then  told 
about  the  position  the  body  was  found 
in;  I  asked  if  the  family  was  not 
alarmed  at  the  pistol  shots;  he  replied 
that  they  were  not  specialh'  uneas\- 
when  Conoley  failed  to  return;  the}' 
retired  as  though  nothing  had  hap- 
pened; said  he  suspected  Millard  Moore 
as  the  murderer,  and  to  the  question  of 
Sheriff  Living.ston  (who  was  on  the 
car)  why  Moore  was  suspected,  he  said 
that  Moore  wanted  Conole}-  out  of  the 
way  on  account  of  land  troubles;  never 
saw  McDougald  again  after  getting  off 
at  Rockingham;  knew  that  INIcDougald 
had  fled  the  country;  McDougald  had 
not  shaved  for  .several  days;  had  onl5' 
a  moustache;  never  w^ore  anything 
else.  [Cross-examination  failed  to 
weaken  this  te.stimony.] 

W.  C.  McPhail  examined:  Lives  at 
Shandon;  remembers  the  day  Conole}' 
was  killed;  saw  a  man  passing  up  the 
road  after  the  freight  train  came  in, 
with  a  long  duster;  did  not  recognize 
him;  was  thirty  yards  off;  Shandon  is 


the  nearest  depot  to  Conoley's — about 
eight  miles  off. 

Jeff  Cobb  examined  :  Am  living  a 
mile  from  Shandon;  was  at  work  near 
the  public  road  April  21st;  saw  a  man 
with  a  duster  and  packages  about  one 
o'clock;  the  man  passed  before  he  got 
in  road. 

Fannie  Meares,  colored  :  April 
2ist  met  a  man  below  Cobb's.  He  was 
a  curious-looking  man,  had  a  duster 
on  and  "toted"  a  valise;  was  awful 
black-looking;  had  long  hair  and  mous- 
tache and  side  locks;  his  hair  was 
straight;  he  said  :  "(iood  evening." 

Henry  Smith  examined  :  Remem- 
bers when  Conoley  was  killed;  was  at 
work  on  the  road;  saw  a  curious-look- 
ing man;  had  on  long  duster;  was  all 
blacked  up,  with  white  places  on  the 
hands  and  back  of  neck;  never  noticed 
whiskers-  only  a  moustache;  told  Cobb 
I  met  the  man ;  he  looked  as  if  painted. 
[Jeff  Cobb  w-as  recalled  to  corroborate 
the  above.] 

Mrs.  Humphrey  examined  :  Lives 
one-fourth  of  a  mile  from  Mr.  Cobb; 
saw  a  man  pass  on  the  road;  a  black- 
looking  man;  slight-built;  duster  and 
bundles  tied  up  in  oilcloth;  did  not 
speak,  nor  look  up;  thinks  he  had  side- 
whiskers;  had  on  green  or  blue  glasses; 
face  gli.stened;  didn't  look  natural;  had 
long  hair;  saw  onl}'  his  side-face. 

Neill  Smith  examined  :  April  21st, 
the  day  of  the  murder,  Calvin  Conoley 
came  to  the  gate  with  the  mail  at  2 
o'clock;  while  the}'  were  talking  a  man 
passed;  wore  a  long  duster  and  had 
bundles;  longhair;  looked  like  a  paint- 
ed man;  one  side  of  his  hat  was  pulled 
down;  did  not  speak  as  he  passed; 
knew  McDougald  at  birth;  had  not 
seen  him  since  he  grew  up;  the  man 
was  about  prisoner's  size;  wore  spec- 
tacles and  whiskers;  he  went  in  the  di- 
rection of  Conoley's;  saw  prisoner  at 
funeral;  did  not  talk  with  him  then  or 
since. 

Cross- Examined — Had  some  peddlers 
in  that  section;  did  not  look  like  a 
peddler;  his  hair,  perhaps,  reached  his 
collar,  but  I  thought  it  a  wig.  [Mrs. 
Humphrey  recalled,  and  her  evidence 
at  Mill  Prong  read,  where  she  said  she 
took  the  man  to  be  a  negro.] 

John  C.  Conoley:  The  day  Con- 
ley  was  killed  saw  a  man  at  2  or  3 
o'clock;  wore  a  duster,  wide-brim  hat, 
spectacles,  and  something  strapped  to 
his  back,  going  in  the  direction  of  Con- 
oley's; he  asked  how  far  it  was  to  Fay- 


6 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 


etteville;  was  a  black-looking,  curious 
man;  had  side-whiskers.  [Nothing 
new  on  cross-examination] 

Sallie  Wilkes  :  On  the  day  Con- 
oley  was  killed  saw  a  man  pass  an 
hour  or  two  by  sun ;  had  on  a  duster 
with  a  strap  across  his  back,  and 
bundles,  going  in  the  direction  of  Con- 
oley's.  Saw  the  prisoner  at  Conoley's 
Wednesday'  night;  heard  him  ask  what 
time  the  murder  was  committed;  said 
he  knew  Lum  Johnson,  but  he  was 
not  the  murderer,  because  Lum  was 
at  work;  told  of  his  trip  to  Wilming- 
tcn;  said  the  train  left  him  at  Maxton, 
where  he  stepped  off,  coming  from 
Wilmington;  testified  to  other  conver- 
sation of  McDougald,  and  said  others 
heard  the  prisoner's  statement  about 
the  trip  to  Wilmington;  prisoner  said 
he  was  on  his  feet  all  Tuesday  night; 
defendant  said  he  went  that  day  to 
Alma  with  his  mother  and  back  to 
Laurinburg,  and  then  came  right  on, 
as  he  had  just  heard  of  the  killing  of 
his  uncle. 

Edgar  Gillespie  :  Has  known  Mc- 
Dougald for  five  or  six  years;  on  April 
22nd  noticed  man  on  the  road  who  said 
he  wanted  to  wash  his  face;  when  he 
pulled  off  his  hat  saw  he  was  a  white 
man;  said  he  was  up  all  night;  he 
was  Dan  McDougald;  this  was  three- 
fourths  of  a  mile  from  Campbell's 
Bridge;  heard  that  evening  of  the  mur- 
der; the  man  had  no  spectacles  or  wig. 
When  man  first  asked  to  wash  his  face 
•witness  gave  him  soiled  towel,  but  af- 
terwards got  clean  towel;  when  witness 
first  saw  man  thought  he  was  black, 
but  on  his  approaching  steps,  and  pull- 
ing off  hat,  saw  that  he  was  white 
man;  on  putting  foot  on  steps  man  re- 
marked that  he  was  tired — been  up  all 
night;  when  man  washed  clean  witness 
saw  w'ho  it  was.  [To  direct  question, 
witness  replied  that  the  man  was  Mc- 
Dougald.] It  was  Wednesday  after 
Conoley  was  killed  night  before. 

Cross  exam772ed :  Took  no  account 
of  exact  day  of  month — remembers  that 
it  was  about  planting-time;  told  Judd 
that  he  did  not  know  who  man  was; 
told  by  counsel  not  to  talk  about  mat- 
ter. 

Hector  Gilchrist  :  Heard  of  the 
murder;  found  clothes  near  Campbell's 
Bridge;  found  handkerchief  with  lamp- 
black, undershirt  and  pants.  Don't 
recollect  what  day  he  found  the  clothes. 

W.  H.  Herring  :  Knows  Mc- 
Dougald; saw  him  April  22nd  at  night; 


saw  him  next  daj'  at  Maxton,  but  was 
some  time  before  he  recognized  him,  as 
McDougald  at  the  time  looked  seedy; 
had  on  a  soft  hat  and  duster,  and  had 
a  black  valise  in  hand;  noticed  lamp- 
black places  under  the  e3es  and  on  his 
neck. 

Cross-examined :  Prisoner's  shoes 
were  muddy. 

M.  Greenwald  :  Knew  prisoner  for 
fifteen  years;  the  22nd  of  April  saw 
him  at  Maxton;  both  eyes  were  dis- 
colored; the  rest  of  the  face  was  un- 
usually red. 

J.  C.  RoBBiNS  :  Known  the  prisoner 
for  years;  saw  him  April  22nd,  and  he 
asked  for  No.  9  slippers;  prisoner  said 
a  man  had  died  on  his  place;  said  some 
one  had  called  him  to  the  door  and 
shot  him,  and  gave  the  name  of  Lum 
Johnson;  never  said  it  was  his  uncle; 
prisoner  bought  of  him  wig  and  false 
whiskers  before  the  murder  of  Conoley 
was  ever  committed. 


FRIDAY — MORNING  SESSION. 

P.  G.  Graham  examined :  Lives 
in  Laurinburg;  between  March  17th 
and  April  15th  sold  McDougald  some 
lampblack,  the  latter  saying  that  a 
friend  of  his  at  Rowland  had  written 
for  it  to  black  himself  for  a  minstrel 
show;  gave  the  name  of  the  person  as 
Charles  Wicker. 

Cross-exami7ied — Is  a  druggist ;  keeps 
lamp  black  for  sale;  McDougald  had 
acted  as  a  negro  in  concerts  at  Mason's 
Crossing  and  Laurinburg;  McDou- 
gald's  character  has  been  particularly 
good. 

G.  S.  McMillan  examined  :  Lives 
at  Laurinburg;  has  known  the  prisoner 
for  fifteen  or  twent\'  j-^ears;  saw  Mc- 
Dougald next  day  after  the  murder  of 
Conole}';  came  into  McRae's  office; 
complained  of  being  tired;  that  he 
went  to  Wilmington  the  day  before  on 
the  freight,  and  came  back  on  the  pas- 
senger train  that  night,  remaining  over 
night  at  Maxton,  going  down  to  Alma, 
and  coming  back  to  Laiirinburg  that 
day;  [the  day  after  Conoley  was  shot — 
Reporter]  that  he  was  worse  than  tired 
— one  of  his  tenants  had  been  called 
out  and  shot  in  the  afternoon,  that  he 
had  a  note  to  that  effect;  two  or  three 
days  after  defendant  gave  the  outline 
of  the  surroundings  of  the  murder; 
thought  there  was  a  place  in  the  field 
where  the  assassin  might  have  stood; 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


that  it  was  supposed  that  he  went  up 
to  the  well  and  called  Conoley  out, 
asking  him  to  show  him  the  way  to 
Wilkes's  house,  and  Conoley  told  him 
to  wait  until  he  got  his  shoes;  never 
said  who  the  tenant  was  who,  he 
claimed,  was  shot;  witness  knew  Lum 
Johnson,  who  worked  on  a  freight 
train;  defendant  said  thought  murderer 
was  white. 

Cross-examined — Said  up  to  this  time 
defendant's  character  was  exception- 
ally good. 

George  P.  Welsh  examined :  Is 
passenger  conductor  on  the  Carolina 
Central  R.  R.,  and  held  that  place  in 
April  last  (gives  schedule  of  trains  at 
that  time);  did  not  see  prisoner  on  the 
train  from  Wilmington  on  the  night 
of  the  2ist  of  April;  has  known  defend- 
ant six  years. 

Cross  examined — A  special  might 
have  passed  over  the  road  of  which  he 
had  no  knowledge;  defendant's  charac- 
ter was  splendid. 

J.  C.  Nehemeyer  examined  :  I  am 
an  engineer  on  the  C.  C.  Railroad;  ran 
an  engine  with  Capt.  Welsh  on  the 
night  of  April  21st;  have  known  Mc- 
Dougald  for  years;  did  not  know  he 
was  on  the  train,  but  did  not  go  through 
train  to  see  who  was  aboard. 

Capt.  Everett,  of  Laurinburg,  tes- 
tifies that  defendant's  character  had 
been  good. 

John  Wilkes  examined :  Live  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  from  Conoley's;  on 
the  night  of  the  murder  heard  two  pis- 
tol shots  in  the  earl 3"  part  of  the  night; 
first  knew  of  the  murder  at  9  o'clock 
next  morning.  (Witness  testified  to 
size  and  location  of  tracks.)  Saw  pris- 
oner on  Thursday,  who  remarked,  on 
examining  the  tracks,  that  \.\\qy  were 
somewhat  like  his — No.  8;  defendant 
arrived  at  Conoley's  at  11  or  12  o'clock 
on  Wednesday  night;  spoke  of  atrip 
to  Wilmington,  and  of  being  tired; 
witness  compared  the  track  with  the 
defendant's  track,  which  measured 
about  the  same;  his  daughter  told  him 
about  seeing  a  strange-looking  man 
pass  on  Tuesday  morning.  Witness 
■went  out  in  field  with  defendant  and 
his  father,  and  caught  defendant  scrap- 
ing his  feet  along  to  blot  out  tracks; 
witness  told  defendant  not  to  destroy 
tracks,  as  they  might  enable  some  one 
else  to  discover  the  murderer. 

Cross-examined — Said  he  had  been 
approached  by  insurance  men  as  to 
what  he  knew  about  the  matter. 


George  Blue  examined  :  Found  at 
Campbell's  Bridge  the  morning  after 
the  murder  pants,  handkerchief,  lamp- 
black, an  old  hat  and  undershirt — the 
latter  blacked  on  collar  and  sleeves; on 
Saturday  morning  prisoner  asked  to 
see  clothes  witness  had  found;  looked 
at  them,  and  told  about  the  killing  of 
his  uncle. 

Chas.  a.  Purcell  examined  :  Met 
the  prisoner  on  the  last  day  of  April; 
told  witness  about  the  stealing  of  his 
clothes  from  a  buggy;  in  answer  to 
question,  witness  said  that  he  thought 
that  parties  were  at  his  uncle  John 
Conoley's  after  him;  that  his  uncle 
John  sent  an  escort  with  him  two  or 
three  miles  in  the  neighborhood;  ap- 
peared much  alarmed,  and  confessed 
that  he  had  been  much  frightened  at 
his  uncle  John's;  defendant  went  in 
the  direction  oi  (iilchrist's  Bridge;  wit- 
ness was  a  magistrate  at  the  prelimi- 
nary investigation  at  Mill  Prong. 

G.  I).  Livingston,  deputy  sherift  of 
Richmond  county,  testified  about  meet- 
ing defendant  on  the  train  on  the  ist 
of  May,  talking  about  the  murder,  and 
asking  defendant  why  he  was  not  at 
the  preliminary  trial;  said  he  was  bu.sy, 
and  couldn't  attend;  spoke  of  a  man 
calling  himself  Lum  Johnson  calling 
his  uncle  out  and  shooting  him;  had 
never  had  any  warrant  for  the  arrest  of 
defendant;  at  the  time  of  the  conversa- 
tion the  prisoner  had  only  a  mous- 
tache. 

C.  A.  Purcell  recalled  :  Said  clothes 
were  not  produced  at  the  investigation 
at  either  Mill  Prong  or  Gilchrist's 
Bridge. 

afternoon  session. 

R.  M.  McNair  examined  :  Saw  Mc- 
Dougald  board  the  train  on  the  ist  of 
ALiy  300  '  yards  above  the  depot  at 
Lauinburg;  saw  him  no  more  till  to- 
day; defendant's  character  was  good. 

b.  P.  Johnson  examined :  Have 
known  prisoner  since  childhood;  saw 
him  on  the  road  the  day  before  he  left 
the  country;  said  he  spent  the  night  at 
his  uncle  John  Conolej-'s,  and  the  fam- 
ily was  frightened  at  the  action  of 
people  after  him;  said  the  clothes  were 
stolen  from  his  buggy. 

W.J.  CuRRiE  examined:  Saw  the 
clothes  at  Campbell's  Bridge  that  day; 
the  shirt  was  marked  on  the  collar  and 
cuffs;  had  seen  prisoner  wear  similar 
clothes. 


8 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 


Jas.  McBryde  examined  :  Saw  the 
clothes  at  Campbell's  Bridge  April 
22nd;  noticed  blacking  on  the  collar; 
on  the  Frida3'  following  saw  defendant 
on  the  train  to  Wilmington;  spoke  to 
him  about  the  murder;  said  Conoley 
was  his  uncle,  but  was  not  communi- 
cative; defendant  asked  about  public 
sentiment  in  witness's  section ;  witness 
said  Millard  Moore  was  suspected;  de- 
fendant concurred,  and  asked  witness 
if  he  thought  a  man  could  be  hung  on 
circumstantial  evidence;  witness  urged 
defendant  to  get  the  clothes,  as  they 
would  form  an  important  link  in  the 
testimony.  Witness  spoke  of  Hamil- 
ton McMillan,  of  Red  Springs,  staying 
at  his  house,  and  who  promised  to  get 
all  the  evidence  possible,  and  would 
see  who  had  lampblack  for  sale  at  Red 
Springs;  told  defendant  he  would  com- 
municate with  McMillan;  got  off  at 
Luraberton;  returned  on  train  with  de- 
fendant the  same  day;  went  to  Laurin- 
burg  Sunday,  in  consequence  of  a  let- 
ter from  McMillan;  defendant  told  wit- 
ness Buie  had  sold  the  blacking,  but 
people  of  Red  Springs  thought  the 
murderer  was  Purnell,  and  were  con- 
vinced that  the  man  who  went  up  on 
the  freight  Tuesday  did  the  killing, 
and  his  name  was  Purnell,  brothet-in- 
lavv  of  Millard  Moore;  that  defendant's 
father  thought  he  had  spotted  the  man, 
and  was  going  out  the  next  day  to 
work  the  matter  up;  witness  told  him 
it  might  not  be  safe  to  needlessly  ex- 
pose himself. 

J.  J.  Mercer  :  Lives  at  Laurinburg; 
heard  of  the  murder  April  25th;  saw 
defendant  on  the  train  from  Wilming- 
ton to  Charlotte;  last  saw  defendant 
April  24th. 

D.  C.  Roper:  Live  at  Tatum's;  re- 
ceived a  letter  or  postal  from  McDou- 
gald; saw  him  at  Phillips  &  McDou- 
gald's  store,  in  regard  to  insurance. 

E.  F.  McRae  :  Have  known  Mc- 
Dougald ten  or  twelve  3'ears;  after  the 
murder  first  saw  the  pri.sonerat  Albany, 
Oregon ;  expressed  his  regrets  at  the 
defendant's  situation;  if  he  could  ex- 
plain his  whereabouts  the  night  of  the 
murder  all  might  be  well;  said  that 
would  be  hard  to  do;  he  gave  his  ac- 
count of  leaving  home  :  He  spoke  of 
the  matter  to  his  father— that  McMil- 
lan told  him  if  he  didn't  watch  IMillard 
Moore  would  fasten  the  crime  on  him; 
he  thought  he  would  leave,  and  get 
rid  of  the  whole  thing,  and  avoid  a  law- 
suit.    His  father  advised  him  not  to 


leave.  Then  he  concluded  to  go  to 
Rockingham,  then  on  to  Charlotte, 
then  concluded  to  leave  the  State;  pris- 
oner then  described  his  trip  out  West 
to  witness — remaining  two  weeks,  and 
working  one  week,  in  Kansas  City, 
then  goingonto  Portland,  Oregon,  and 
finally  to  Albany.  When  arrested 
prisoner  was  going  under  name  of  D. 
H  McLaurin.  [Nothing  of  importance 
on  cross-examination.] 

E.  F.  McRae  is  a  prominent  citizen, 
and  went  to  Oregon  for  the  prisoner. 

SATURDAY — MORNING. 

E.  F.  ]\IcRae's  examination  con- 
tinued :  In  Oregon,  prisoner  inquired 
about  Millard  Moore  and  Kelly;  as  to 
what  had  been  done  with  them,  etc. 
Had  heard  from  home  onl^'  through 
his  brother,  and  had  seen  no  paper  but 
the  North  Carolina  Presbyterian. 

G.  S.  McMillan  testified  as  to 
defendant's  handwriting. 

Dr.  a.  W.  Hamer  examined:  Iden- 
tified paper  produced  (application  for 
insurance);  saw  Conoley  sign  the 
paper;  never  saw  Conolej^  before  Sep- 
tember 12th,  1890;  was  introduced  by 
D.  A.  McDougald;  sent  the  policy  to 
Roper,  at  Tatum's. 

D.  C.  Roper  examined:  Had  con- 
versation with  McDougald  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1890  about  a  policy  of  insurance 
on  Simeon  Conolej',  in  favor  of  his 
sister,  Margaret,  for  $5,000;  in  conse- 
quence of  correspondence  went  to 
Laurinburg,  met  defendant,  and  talked 
of  insurance;  left  Killabrew  and  Mc- 
Dougald together,  and  when  he  re- 
turned found  part  of  the  application 
written;  a  postal  card  was  identified, 
reading  as  follows: 

"L.^URiNBURG,  N.  C,  Sept.  13,  1890. 
Dear  Sir: — You  can  send  me  the 
policy,  and  I'll  remit  to  ^'ou.  Mr, 
Conoley  arranged  it  with  me  to  pay 
you,  so  you  can  send  or  bring  it  when 
you  get  it  approved. 

Very  respectfully, 

D.  a.  McDougald." 

The  policy  was  issued  about  ten 
da3"S  after  medical  examination ;  Killa- 
brew delivered  the  policy  to  prisoner 
in  his  store,  and  received  $239  on  the 
same. 

G.  S.  McMillan  was  recalled  to  make 
a  point  clear  in  identification  of  hand- 
writing. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


9 


D.  B.  McLean:  Received  the  letter 
throug^h  the  mail  in  regular  order. 

Cross  examined:  Had  conversation 
with  defendant  in  relation  to  land  and 
other  things;  there  was  a  controversy 
between  Simeon  Conoley  and  Millard 
Moore;  didn't  know  of  IMoore's  shoot- 
ing Loniax  near  Conoley's,  on  the 
disputed  land;  had  onl}-  heard  of  it; 
there  was  bad  feeling  between  Conoley 
and  Moore,  but  it  had  been  settled; 
after  the  letter  introduced  had  been 
written  Moore  told  witness  the  trouble 
had  been  bridged  over. 

J.  A.  Currik:  Talked  with  defend- 
ant at  Conoley's  burial ;  defendant  said 
he  was  worried— had  been  in  Wilming- 
ton the  day  and  night  before  the  mur- 
der, and  was  at  Conolej-'s  the  previous 
night;  he  concurred  in  the  opinion  of 
witness  that  it  was  the  worst  murder 
ever  done  in  the  county;  said  it  was 
certainl}'  premeditated;  said  that  the 
Conoley  place  belonged  to  him,  as  he 
had  taken  up  the  mortgage  of  Mr. 
Thomson,  in  Fayetteville;  defendant 
said  he  had  heard  that  Conoley  paid 
1,500  pounds  of  lint  cotton  for  the  Carter 
place,  but  that  the  mules  and  guano 
were  his  that  made  the  cotton;  witness 
heard  that  the  Conoley  and  Moore  dif- 
ficulty was  adjusted. 

Cross-examined:  Mrs.  Margaret  Con- 
oley had  a  child  twelve  or  thirteen 
j-ears  old;  defendant's  mother  had 
other  children  besides  him;  had  heard 
of  Moore  shooting  Lomax. 

John  A.  Wilkes,  recalled:  Last 
year  Conoley  was  taken  suddenly  sick, 
about  the  last  of  November  or  the  first 
of  Deceiuber,  at  witness's  house,  shiv- 
ering and  shaking;  fell  across  a  chair, 
and  made  a  noise  like  a  man  dying  in 
a  struggle;  seemed  perfectly  stiff;  laid 
him  down  on  the  floor,  and  sent  for 
Dr.  Currie,  who  assisted  Conoley  to 
get  back  to  his  mother's. 

Cross-examined:  Conoley  had  candy 
in  his  pocket;  three  round  red  pieces 
and  others  in  the  shape  of  shoes  and 
shot;  gave  witness  some,  who  ate  two 
pieces,  and  gave  little  boy  one;  his 
wife  threw  the  rest  in  the  fire;  witness 
nor  child  was  sick;  knew  of  bad  feel- 
ing between  Millard  Moore  and  Cono- 
ley; three  or  four  years  previous  had 
heard  Moore  say  he  would  shoot 
Simeon  Conoley  or  anj^  others  he 
found  on  his  land;  saw  a  wound  on 
Lomax,  and  was  present  when  Moore 
was  convicted. 


George  Currie  (colored):  Lived  at 
Conoley's  when  he  was  killed — 
employed  by  McDougald;  went  for  a 
physician  for  Conolej'  when  he  was 
sick  at  Wilkes's;  saw  McDougald  at 
Conoley's  that  day ;  came  there  the  day 
tefore;  saw  him  when  he  left  with 
Conoley  in  a  buggy;  it  was  eight  or 
nine  o'clock;  defendant  was  there 
about  once  a  month 

Dr.  Currie:  Was  called  to  see  Con- 
oley about  ist  of  last  December;  found 
him  trembling  and  jerking;  did  not 
have  a  chill;  his  lower  extremities 
were  not  convulsed;  had  been  a  prac- 
ticing physician  fourteen  years,  but 
not  in  active  practice  for  the  past  lour 
or  five  years. 

AFTERNOON   SESSION 

Dr.  Currie's  examination  con-' 
tinued;  Was  never  before  the  State 
Society;  am  a  graduate  of  Edinborq 
College,  Robeson  county;  I  gave  only 
an  emetic. 

Dr.  D.  N.  Prince:  Graduated  iu 
1871;  the  symptoms  testified  to  by 
Wilkes  and  Dr.  Currie  indicated  irrita- 
tion about  the  spinal  cord;  the  defend: 
ant  spoke  to  him  about  Conoley  being 
poisoned  by  candy  given  him  by  de- 
fendant; said  he  had  a  letter  to  that 
effect;  brought  witness  a  box  of  the 
candy  with  the  powder  in  the  box;  it 
looked  like  strychnine,  and  witness 
advised  him  to  see  Everington  about 
it.  Witness  asked  to  see  letter,  but 
the  defendant  couldn't  find  it  in  his 
pocket;  witne.ss  made  a  test  of  the 
powder,  and  found  it  to  be  strychnine; 
if  relieved  by  an  emetic  it  would  indi- 
cate poi.son  to  the  spinal  cord. 

Cross-examined.  Meningitis  will 
produce  similar  results;  a  small  quan- 
tity of  strychnine  will  produce  death; 
it  would  take  effect  in  fifteen  minutes; 
adults  are  rareh-  thus  affected  by  indi- 
gestion. 

G.  D.  Everington:  LiveatLaurin- 
burg;  am  a  druggist;  about  last  De- 
cember McDougald  inquired  for  Dr. 
Prince  at  my  store;  he  afterwards  found 
Dr.  Prince;  defendant  walked  to  the 
candy-stand  and  called  for  brandy- 
drops;  called  for  an  open  box,  and 
went  to  Dr.  Prince's  office;  witness 
followed,  and  found  them  examining 
the  candy;  asked  what  was  the  matter; 
defendant  walked  out;  found  powder  in 
the  candy-box;  it  proved  to  be  strych- 


no 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 


uine-povvder;  had  stn'chnine  powder 
in  the  store  on  the  upper  shelf,  but  it 
never  had  been  opened;  defendant's 
character  was  good. 

Powell  Hill,  a  clerk  in  the  drug- 
store, testified:  Defendant  called  fur 
brandy  drops  about  last  Dei-ember; 
two  weeks  later  called  for  more;  wit- 
ness offered  to  wait  on  him;  defendant 
said  he  would  wait  on  himself;  said 
he  would  take  two  nickels'  worth  of 
candy  out  of  the  show-case,  and  did 
so,  after  fumbling  in  the  brandy  drop 
box  sometime;  saw  a  white  powder  in 
the  box;  never  saw  the  powder  in  the 
box  before;  sold  cand}'  out  of  the  box 
on  the  previous  Saturda}^ 

Cross  examined:  Was  not  paying 
particular  attention  to  prisoner;  it 
was  the  same  day  Drs  Everington 
and  Prince  made  the  examination. 

VV.  S.  Gkaham  testified:  Measured 
the  tracks  leading  from  the  spot  where 
Conoley  was  killed ;  followed  the  tracks 
from  the  fence  to  the  public  crossing 
at  the  ditch,  and  to  the  swamp,  where 
was  evidence  of  a  halt;  saw  defendant 
at  Conoley's  funeral;  Conoley's  finan- 
cial condition  was  poor;  he  had  been 
driving  a  wagon;  didn't  know  whether 
^he  worked  on  wages  or  not. 

Cross-examined:  Didn't  know 
whether  Conoley  owned  the  farm  or 
land;  heard  he  had  bought  a  piece  of 
land;  didn't  know  about  what  prop- 
erty he  had;  found  a  ball  six  inchis 
in  the  ground  under  Conoley's  head; 
the  ball  was  wrapped  in  hair. 

A.  F,  Bizzell:  Knows  defendant; 
heard  of  the  murder;  received  a  note 
from  defendant,  by  J.  A.  Roper,  last 
April,  saying:  "Millard  Moore  will 
be  at  McBride's  that  night;  carry  some 
picked  men;  you  will  be  met;  grand- 
mother is  in  a  terrible  condition."  It 
was  a  sealed  note;  defendant's  charac- 
ter was  good. 

J.  A.  Roper:  Remembered  the  note; 
McDougald  acted  the  part  of  a  negro 
in  a  concert  at  Laurinburg;  had  a 
slouch  hat,  wig,  false  whiskers,  a  little 
.budget  on  shoulder,  a  stick  run 
through  the  package;  had  known  de 
fendant  for  years,  but  could  not  tell 
who  he  was  at  the  concert;  defendant's 
character,  up  to  the  murder,  was  with- 
out blemish. 

McKay  McKinnon:  Saw  defendant 
at  the  house  April  25th;  he  came  from 
the  direction  of  Laurinburg;  said  he 
was  going  to  McKinnon's  mill  for 
some  clothes  he  heard  were  over  there 


that  might  lead  to  the  detection  of  the 
murderer;  defendant  returned  with  the 
clothe.s — gray  cassimere  pants,  a  new 
undershirt,  a  box  of  lampblack;  asked 
witness  if  he  didn't  think  the  man 
who  wore  the  clothes  was  a  plough- 
man; defendant  thought  the  man  was 
Millard  Moore;  the  cotton  shirt  was 
.soiled. 


SECOND  WEEK. 


MONDAY   MORNING. 


George  Currie  recalled:  Lived  on 
Conole3''s  land  in  April  of  this  year, 
and  worked  on  after  murder;  next  day 
atter  Conoley  was  killed  went  after 
defendant;  found  him  at  home,  in 
shirt  sleeves  and  stocking- feet;  asked 
how  killing  occurred — no  other  con- 
versation ;  recollects  going  after  doctor. 

Cross-examined:  Reached  Laurin- 
burg at  I  or  2  o'clock. 

W.  H  Phillips:  Saw  defendant  on 
Wednesday  of  week  after  murder;  rode 
up  to  -witness's  blacksmith-shop  at 
Autioch;  witness  said  he  would  like 
to  see  the  mysterious  clothes;  defend- 
ant drove  off  immediateh-,  making  no 
answer  when  witness  said  that  perhaps 
he  might  know  the  pants;  didn't  say 
where  he  was  going;  shop  is  about 
eighteen  miles  from  Laurinburg,  and 
three  or  four  miles  from  John  Cono- 
ley's. 

Cross  examined:  Only  knew  defend- 
ant when  he  saw  him— -not  well  ac- 
quaintedj  met  him  first  at  Conoley's 
burial. 

H.  H.  Hodgin:  Saw  defendant  on 
Wednesdaj'  of  week  after  murder,  at 
Antioch,  drove  up  to  witness's  store, 
and  had  a  short  conversation,  asked  if 
there  had  been  an}-  arrests  made,  and 
replied  that  thought  not,  but  investi- 
gation was  going  on;  told  defendant 
that  Malloy  McBryde  had  gone  to 
-XJaxton,  and  had  asked  him  to  go  and 
.see  clothes  found  at  [McMillan'.s]  Mill. 
McBr5'de  returned  that  evening;  wit- 
ness, speaking  to  McDougald,  said: 
"You  have  the  clothes  at  Laurinburg,  I 
suppose,  not  seeing  them  with  3'ou," 
can't  say  what  reply  defendant  made, 
did  not  show  clothes  to  witness;  de- 
fendant said  he  was  going  to  Conoley 's: 
Circumstances  of  Conoley  somewhat 
straightened  in  fall  of  '90. 

Cross-examined — Didn't  know  that 
he  was  related  to   Conoley;  couldn't 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


11 


say,  of  his  own  knowledge,  what  prop- 
erty latter  owned  in  year  1S90. 

T.  E.  Phillips  recalled  :  Didn't  say 
he  saw  prisoner  at  water-tank  April 
2ist,  but  based  statement  on  what  he 
heard  of  murder,  and  fixed  date  by 
that;  it  might  have  been  21st,  and 
might  not;  defendant's  being  at  water- 
tank,  shabbily  dressed,  caused  witness 
to  notice  him;  Lockamy's  train  over- 
took witness's  train  at  Red  Springs. 

D  B.  McIyAUCHLiN  :  Tax- list  taker 
in  1890;  don't  know  what  Conolej'  was 
worth . 

Cross  exafnined:  Knew  W.  P.  Dan- 
iels, representing  New  York  Life  In- 
surance Co — saw  him  at  Antioch; 
didn't  know  where  he  came  from,  or 
where  he  was  going. 

Here  the  State  rested. 


TESTIMONY  FOR  THE  DEFENSE. 

W.  D.  B.  ISIcEachern  :  was  at  con- 
certs at  Laurinburg  and  Mason's  Cross- 
ing; saw  defendant  act  part  of  negro, 
with  negro  wig  and  whiskers  of  iron- 
gray,  cutaway  black  coat  wrong-side- 
out,  blue  overalls  patched  and  good 
deal  worn;  witness  blacked  defendant's 
face;  helped  black  defendant's  face  in 
same  part  at  Mason's,  but  recollection 
notsoclear  as  about  Laurinburg,  where 
witness  also  took  part;  didn't  think  de- 
fendant wore  wig  at  Mason's;  known 
the  prisoner  all  his  life,  and  character 
as  good  as  that  of  an\'  man  he  ever 
knew;  Phillips  wore  duster  at  Laurin- 
burg. 

Cross  exa?nined:  Don't  remember 
dates  of  concerts;  defendant  dressed  in 
three  different  styles  — stick,  bundle 
over  shoulder,  with  dog;  didn't  think 
defendant  wore  duster  at  Laurinburg; 
thought  defendant  attempted  to  turn 
out  whiskers,  but  cut  them  ofl;  saw 
defendant  twice  after  murder,  and  he 
was  only  wearing  moustache;  couldn't 
describe  costume  at  Mason's  except 
that  defendant's  face  was  blacked,  and 
carried  stick  and  bundle  over  shoulder; 
last  siw  defendant  on  Sunday  before 
he  left;  charcters  of  J.  C.  Robbins,  G. 
D.  Everington,  G.  S.  McMillan  and 
Powell  Hill  are  good. 

R.  D.  Phillips  :  Was  at  concerts  at 
Laurinburg  and  Mason's  Crossing;  at 
former  defendant  wore  coat  wrong- 
side-out,  negro  wig  sprinkled  with 
flour,  iron-gray  whiskers;  witness  also 


acted  negro  part,  wearing  drab-colored 
duster,  which  he  borrowed,  but.  not 
from  defendant;  at  ^Lason's  prisoner 
was  dressed  about  the  same  as  at 
Laurinburg;  defendant  is  in  easy  ciri 
cumstances,  without  incumbrances, 
and  rather  charitable  and  liberal;  don't 
know  prisoner's  dealings  with  Conor 
ley's  family,  except  that  at  limes  he 
bought  farm  supplies,  and  sent  iheiu 
out  to  Conoleys,  while  the  firm  of 
Phillips  &  McDougald  was  in  exist; 
ence;  witness  paid  pri.soner  about  $i,t 
000  after  dissolution  of  the  firm;  read 
notice  to  defendant  of  murder  of  Conof 
lej-;  prisoner  borrowed  witness's  horse 
and  buggy  to  go  ind  see  about  it; 
didn't  notice  piisoner's  face  beintJ^  un^ 
usually  red;  character  of  defendant 
very  good  up  to  this  time. 

Cross-examined — Don't  charge  de^ 
fendant  with  being  liberal  of  witness's 
funds;  never  had  any  cause  to  believe 
it;  at  concert  spoken  of  defendant  had 
on  a  slouch  hat;  don't  know  who.st  A 
whiskers  he  used;  defendant,  in  busr 
iness,  didn't  charge  rations  up  to 
anyone  but  himself;  defendant  had 
a  pistol,  and  kept  it  in  the  moneyr 
drawer;  defendant  wanted  the  hor.se 
and  buggy  to  go  to  Robe.son,  sayingi: 
"My  uncle  was  killed  last  night;" 
never  heard  prisoner  charged  with  Ihe 
murder  until  it  was  reported  that  he 
had  left  the  country;  he  generally  wore 
a  moustache;  do  not  recollect  seeing 
defendant  wipe  a  pen  by  drawing  it 
across  his  pants— no  ink-stains  on  sidfe 
of  pants;  went  to  see  prisoner  in  jaib, 
who  said  he  went  to  Charlotte,  Greensr 
boro,  Lynchburg,  Kansas  Cit}-,  Orfi- 
gon;  that  it  was  a  fine  count:}-;  didn't 
say  what  names  he  went  under;  pre- 
ferred to  have  nothing  to  say  about 
the  charge  of  murder;  in  September, 
i.Syo,  thought  defendant  was  worth 
about  $3,000;  the  character  of  G.  D. 
Everington,  G.  S.  McIMilian,  J.  S. 
Robbins,  Powell  Hill,  E.  F.  McRae 
are  good.  , 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

James  Leak:  Telegraph  operator  of 
Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley  Railway 
at  Fayetteville;  keeps  record  of  trains'; 
no  extra  train  ran  from  Favetteville  to 
Maxton  April  21st,  1S91;  had  examined 
records. 

Cross-examined:  Arrival  and  depart- 
ure of  trains  registered  in  book  in 
office,  which  showed  no  registration  of 
extra  train  that  day. 


12 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 


I.  W.  Clark:  Master-mechanic  Cape 
Fear  <!s:  Yadkin  Valley  Railway;  keeps 
no  account  of  extra  trains;  would 
have  to  judge  by  mileage  given  in  by 
engineers;  book  showed  no  extra 
mileage  for  T.  E.  Phillips  April  21st; 
found  record  extra  mileage  for  T.  E. 
Phillips  April  25th.  and  record  that 
Phillips  was  on  road  that  da}-;  possi- 
ble that  he  went  out  April  21st,  but, 
if  so,  should  have  been  recorded  at 
telegraph  office,  which  was  place  for 
such  record. 

J.  A.  McLaughlin:  Yard-master 
Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley  Railway; 
makes  up  all  trains  leaving  Fayette 
ville;  record  kept  of  trains  leaving 
and  arriving;  no  extra  left  Fayette- 
ville  April  21st. 

Cross-examiyied:  Record  of  conduc- 
tors and  engineers  kept  in  telegraph 
office;  ahva^'S  conductors  on  trains 
running  as  far  as  Red  Springs. 

R.  D  Phillips  recalled:  Prisoner 
%  told  witness  attorney  advised  him  not 
to  talk  about  murder;  defendant  gen- 
erally wore  blue  flannel  suit  in  store, 
but  black  suit  for  Sunday;  no  recollec- 
tion of  defendant's  light  suit;  thought 
Erisoner  of  rather  timid  nature;  never 
card  of  his  having  difficulty  with 
an  \' body. 

Cross-examined:  No  recollection  of 
defendant's  pepper-and-salt  panta- 
loons. 

John  Sellars:  Saw  defendant  at 
Alma  April  22d,  at  8  or  9  o'clock;  in 
two  or  three  feet  of  him;  saw  nothing 
unusual;  no  black  on  face;  did  not 
notice  how  he  was  dressed;  was  busy 
in  store  at  time. 

Cross-examined:  Talked  with  pris- 
oner; didn't  say  where  he  was  the  day 
betore;  don't  remember  that  I  ever  saw 
prisoner  there  before;  characters  of 
E.  F.  McRae  and  A.  J.  Cottingham 
good. 

W.  W.  McGirt:  Saw  defendant  at 
Alma  April  22d,  early  in  morning; 
talked  and  shook  hands  with  him; 
saw  no  black  on  face;  defendant's  pre- 
vious character  was  good. 

Cross-examined:  Been  living  at  Alma 
two  or  three  years;  never  saw  prisoner 
there  at  time  of  day  before;  don't 
recollect  conversation;  told  defendant 
he  was  busy,  and  some  one  would 
show  him  around;  thinks  df-fendant 
was  dressed  in  black;  never  saw  de- 
fendant with  whiskers  before  now. 

Daniel  McKinnon:  Clerking  at 
Campbell's  Bridge  April  21st;  late  that 


night  man  came  to  window  and  wanted 
crackers,  whose  name  was  Cole,  a 
rafter;  saw  clothes  found  near  bridge- - 
pants,  undershirt,  handkerchief  and 
old  hat;  pants  rather  small — judge 
would  fit  Cole— certainly  too  small  for 
McDougald. 

Cross-examined:  Had  been  asleep 
when  Cole  called;  had  seen  him  before 
that;  didn't  see  him  have  wig  or 
whiskers;  on  Thursday  night  Cole 
paid  for  crackers:  didn't  know  where 
Cole  lived,  or  how  he  was  dressed  that 
night;  there  was  little  blacking  on 
neck  of  shirt  found. 

E.  J.  Hester:  Saw  clothes  on  bank 
of  river  [describes  them  as  above 
given];  saw  little  blacking  round  neck 
of  shirt;  remembers  some  one  coming 
to  store  Tuesday  night,  but  did  not 
see  him;  saw  man  pay  for  crackers  on 
Thursday;  knew  Edgar  Gillespie,  and 
had  conversation  with  him  and  an- 
other negro;  told  Gillespie  he  sup- 
posed he  would  have  to  go  to  court, 
and  Gillespie  replied,  "Yes,  and  he 
would,  too,  and  would  all  be  there 
together;"  asked  Gillespie  if  he  was 
certain  it  was  McDougald  washed  at 
his  house  that  morning;  replied  that 
he  was  not  certain;  didn't  think  Gil- 
lespie's character  was  good;  Gillespie  . 
traded  a  little  more  about  time  of 
court  than  before. 

Cross-examined:  He  saw  no  black- 
ing on  shirt-sleeves;  saw  opened  pack- 
age of  lamp  black;  knew  Cole;  thought 
he  lived  some  miles  distant;  last  saw 
Cole  week  or  so  after;  never  heard  of 
Cole  leaving;  didn't  see  man  at  the 
time  he  bought  the  crackers;  hadn't 
passed  there  with  raft  in  week  or  two; 
again  asked  Gillespie  at  Lumberton  if 
he  was  certain  it  was  McDougald  who 
washed  at  his  house,  and  he  replied 
that  he  w^as;  then  asked  him  why  he 
first  said  that  he  was  not  certain;  have 
not  received  money  from  anj'  one  con- 
nected with  case,  or  been  employed  to 
work  up  testimony. 

E.  J.  Powers  :  Saw  prisoner  on 
platform  at  Maxton,  at  6:30  or  6:40, 
April  22nd;  was  engineer  C.  C.  R.  R.; 
shook  hands  with  defendant;  saw  noth- 
ing unusual  about  face;  was  engineer 
of  train  on  which  McDougald  went 
down  that  morning. 

Cross-examined —  General  character 
of  G.  S.  McMillan  and  J.  C.  Robbins 
good;  didn't  notice  defendant's  shoes 
were  muddy,  or  that  he  had  bundles; 
couldn't  say  that  he  ever  saw  prisoner 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


13 


at  Maxton  so  early  before;  don't  re- 
member telling  W.  J.  Edwards  that 
defendant  looked  "seedy,"  and  had 
either  been  up  all  night  before,  or 
drunk. 

Rev.  Chalmers  Moore  :  In  con- 
versation Powers  told  him,  in  sub- 
stance, what  he  had  given  on  stand; 
defendant's  character  hitherto  good — 
also  characters  of  W.  D.  B.  McEach- 
ern,  R.  D.  Phillips,  J.  C.  Robbins,  G. 
S.  McMillan,  D  D.  Livingston,  J.  E. 
Furcell,  E.  F.  McRae;  a  few  weeks 
after  murder  when  he  had  conversa- 
tion with  Powers;  Edwards  told  him, 
ill  substance,  what  he  had  testified  to 
on  stand  [witness  gives  testimony  as 
to  defendant's  dress  at  concerts];  last 
saw  prisoner  at  pra^-er-meeting  at 
Laurinburg,  the  night  before  it  was 
reported  that  he  had  left  State. 

Owen  Page  :  Telegraph  operator 
of  Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley  Rail- 
way at  Fayetteville,  with  brother  and 
Mr.  Leak;  was  in  office  April  21st;  i\& 
record  of  special  train  on  that  daj'. 
[Cross-examination  developed  noth- 
ing new].     Adjourned. 


TUESDAY — MORNING. 

John  Williams  :  Last  year  lived  at 
Campbell's  Bridge  in  house  of  two 
rooms— he  in  one  room,  Edgar  Gilles- 
pie in  other  with  wife;  thought  Gilles- 
pie worked  at  McColl's  April  21st; 
heard  that  Conoley  was  killed  night 
of  2ist,  when  Gillespie's  wife  was  at 
McColl's;  witness  rose  next  morning 
at  light,  and  saw  no  one;  didn't  think 
Gillespie  stayed  in  house  that  night — 
has  no  recollection  of  his  being  there; 
cooked  breakfast,  and  was  in  house 
till  half-hour  by  sun. 

Cross-examhied—^o  one  lived  with 
witness,  but  had  hired  girl  to  work 
for  him;  at  time  Gillespie  was  working 
at  McColl's  usuall}-  came  home  Satur- 
day night,  returning  on  Monday  morn- 
ing; didn't  see  auj'body  in  house  night 
of2ist  or  morning  of  22nd;  at  latter 
time  Gillespie  usually  fed  his  hogs 
and  chickens;  Gillespie's  wife  went  to 
McColl's  on  Saturday  night  before 
killing;  had  said  before,  as  he  .said 
now,  that  if  Gillespie  stayed  in  the 
house  night  of  April  21st  he  didn't 
know  it;  had  talked  with  lawyers  here 
about  ca.se. 

R.  F.  Devane  :  In  business  near 
Wakulla;  didn't  think  Gillespie  stood 


well  in  community;  boarded  freight 
train  on  Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley 
Railway  April  21st;  saw  one  passen- 
ger, with  whom  conversed;  couldn't 
say  pri-soner  was  that  man.  but  his 
best  impression  that  the  man  was 
much  build  of  prisoner,  but  darker 
complexion;  didn't  see %ny  extra  train. 

Cross-examined — Man  he  saw  had 
sandy  moustache,  ordinarily  dark  com- 
plexion; man  asked  how  long  train 
would  stay  at  Red  Springs;  asked 
about  growth  of  town;  positive  passen- 
ger had  no  duster — might  have  had 
valise  on  seat;  couldn't  sa^'  prisoner 
at  bar  was  man  on  freight  train. 

J.  F.  McLaurin  :  Live  near  Mc- 
Coll's; general  character  of  Edgar  Gil- 
lespie not  verj^  good;  defendant's  char- 
acter good. 

R.  D.  Phillips  recalled  :  General 
character  of  E.  J.  Powers  and  J.  F.  Mc- 
Laurin were  good;  spoke  to  Gillespie 
after  he  left  stand,  who  did  not  recog^ 
nize  witness;  told  some  one  at  hotel  of 
what  Gillespie  had  told  him;  couldn't 
say  Gillespie  had  traded  v^ith  Phillips 
&'McDougald. 

D.  T.  Hargrove  :  Live  in  Laurin- 
burg; general  character  of  Edgar  Gil- 
lespie very  bad;  characters  of  J  F.  Mc- 
Laurin and  E.  J.  Powers  as  good  as 
an^'body's;  prisoner's  previous  charac- 
ter unspotted — regarded  as  modest, 
rather  retiring  man;  defendant  was 
not  superintendent  but  secretary  and 
treasurer  of  Sunday  school;  was  at 
home  or  thereabouts  time  of  murder, 
being  town  officer;  from  time  people 
first  heard  of  murder  they  said  mur- 
derer ought  to  be  lynched,  only  threat 
he  heard  made  was  by  Millard  Moore, 
who  said  he  would  get  even  with  Mc- 
Dougald  when  he  got  out,  which  was 
before  McDougald  left;  in  meantime, 
he  had  secured  arrest  of  John  Kelly, 
charged  with  the  murder,  whom  he 
took  to  Montpelier  May  ist;  about 
that  time  heard  flying  rumors  about 
lynching  defendant;  is.sued  warrant 
for  prisoner's  arrest  May  4th;  excite- 
ment in  and  around  Laurinburg  was 
such  that  the  citizens  of  the  town  said 
ifpeopleof  Robeson  came  up  fordefend- 
ant  they  would  accompany  him  for 
protection  against  violence;  defendant 
was  not  regarded  as  rich,  but  simply 
independent;  it  was  auout  18  or  2l 
miles  from  Laurinburg  to  Conolej's. 

Cross- Examined:  Thought  defendant 
left  May  ist;  didn't  know  that  threats 
of  lynching  had  ever  been  mentioned 


u 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  Mc  Doug  aid 


to  McDou?ald;  Millard  Moore  was  lib- 
erated 4  or  5  days  after  McDougald 
left;  most  of  those  witness  heard  talk 
in  Laurinburg  were  defendant's 
friends;  had  heard  of  threats  as  early 
as  Wednesday  before  pri.soner  left; 
thought  defendant,  in  1890,  was  worth 
between  $5,oootind  5S6,ooo. 

Roderick  McRae  :  Live  in  Laurin- 
burg; defendant's  character  good; 
thinks  McDougald,  about  May  ist, 
was  worth  about  $5,000;  on  Sunday  be- 
fore prisoner  left  first  heard  that  Mil- 
lard Moore  charged  him  with  murder, 
and  heard  that  if  he  was  carried  to  Max- 
ton  it  would  not  be  safe,  as  he  would 
be  lynched  -that  it  people  around 
Maxton  got  hold  of  him  he  would  be 
lynched.  [Describes  location  of  Max- 
ton  and  Lumberton]. 

Cross-exaniued — Characters  of  J.  C 
Robbins,  G.  D.  Everington,  G.  S.  Mc- 
Millan, E.  F.  McRae,  Powell  Hill 
good.  [Question  by  State  as  to  wheth- 
er prisoner  was  ever  before  charged 
with  other  offense  objected  to  by  de- 
fense; objection  sustained];  McDougald 
left  several  days  before  Millard  Moore 
accu.«ed  him  of  the  murder. 

Alex.  McMillan:  Edgar Gillispie 
lived  on  his  place  last  year — general 
character  not  good;  characters  of  de- 
fendant, A.  J.  Hester,  D.  T.  Hargrove, 
E.  J.  Powers,  G.  S.  McMillan,  G.  D. 
Everington,  Powell  Hill  and  J.  C.  Rob- 
bins  good. 

T.  A.  McBryde  :  General  charac- 
ter of  Edgar  Gillespie  13  or  14  years 
ago  was  not  got. 

J.  H,  Parker:  Live  at  Maxton; 
Sunday  after  McDougald  left  country, 
in  a  crowd,  heard  some  one  say  prisoner 
was  charged  with  the  murder,  and 
some  one  said  he  ought  to  be  taken, 
and  he  would  be  one  of  a  number  to  go 
for  him;  Ed.  McRae,  justice  of  the 
peace,  proposed  to  issue  warrant  for 
arrest 

Cross-exainmed — This  was  Sunday 
after  McDougald  left;  opinion  was  that 
murderer  was  man  who  got  on  at  tank, 
which  prisoner  did;  feeling  against  de- 
fendant was  very  strong;  Tom  Pool, 
Alex.  McKinnon,  Ed.  McRae,  Sam 
Parish  were  in  crowd;  witness  went  to 
Laurinburg  to  ascertain  whether  or 
not  reports  were  true,  but  hadn't  seen 
prisoner  before  to-day. 

S.  J.  Smith  :  General  character  of 
Edgar  Gillespie  is  not  good 

J.  S.  Haddock:  Conductor  on  C.  C. 
p.,  R. ;  run  train  that  passed  Maxton 


on  April  22nd;  saw  all  passengers,  and 
collected  tickets;  noticed  none  with 
blacking  on  face;  didn't  know  McDou- 
gald, but  saw  no  one  of  unusual  ap- 
pearance, which  thinks  he  would  have 
noticed. 

Crossexami?ied:  Wouldn '  t  have 
known  prisoner  from  anyone  else; 
didn't  examine  back  of  anybody's 
neck;  know  W.  H.  Herring — nothing 
against  him. 

McKay  McKinnon  recalled:  As  to 
the  clothes,  it  was  a  woollen  under- 
shirt— little  black  on  neck;  thought 
blacking  could  have  been  caused  by 
wearing;  good  deal  of  rafting  at  Camp- 
bell's Bridge;  hard  work. 

Cross-examined:  Thought  it  was  fine 
shirt;  had  never  known  any  one  to 
raft  in  such  goods;  a  man  rafting  logs 
wouldn'tbelikely  to  wear  such  clothes. 
John  F.  Smith:  Sheriff  of  Rich- 
mond County;  character  of  Captain 
Powers  good;  D.  D.  Livingston  told 
him  that  reports  published  were  about 
correct;  saw  defendant  on  train;  pris- 
oner's previous  character  good. 

Cross  examined:  Don't  kno\v 
whether  or  not  clothes  were  at  prelimi  • 
nary  trial;  received  warrant  for  arrest 
of  prisoner,  issued  by  E.  F.  McRae, 
and  sent  through  Sheriff  Pitman,  but 
could  not  find  him;  characters  of  G.  S. 
McMillan,  G.  D.  Everington  and  J.  C. 
Robbins  are  good. 

W.  G.  Quakenbush:  General  pre- 
vious character  of  defendant  good; 
heard  that  Millard  Moore  had  charged 
McDougald  with  the  murder  before 
defendant  left;  afterwards  heard  that 
threats  had  been  made  against  Mc- 
Dougald. 

Cross-examined:  Thought  it  was 
about  Wednesday  before  defendant 
left  that  he  heard  of  charge  by  Moore; 
after  defendant  left  heard  threats  had 
been  made  aeainst  him;  characters  of 
G.  S.  McMillan,  Powell  Hill,  G.  D. 
Everington  and  E.  F.  McRae  good. 

Hector  McLean:  Lives  near  Laur- 
inburg; on  Friday  after  murder  went 
to  Montpelier  on  church  matters,  but 
his  brother  told  him  he  heard  prisoner 
was  charged  with  the  murder,  and 
witness  went  to  Laurinburg;  on  Mon- 
day following  Crow.son  said  there  was 
strong  evidence  against  defendant;  no 
character  better  than  that  of  prisoner; 
bought  alum,  for  child  with  croup,  at 
Everington's  drug-store,  which  proved 
to  be  borax;  characters  of  E.  J.  Powers 
and  D.  T.  Hargrove  good;  had  never 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


15 


heard  any  threat  against  defendant 
until  after  he  left;  supposed  he  was  in 
easy  circumstances. 

j'  T.  Roper:  Live  in  Laurinburg; 
defendant's  character  good;  heard  after 
defendant  left  of  threats  of  lynching; 
characters  of  Powers  and  Hargrove 
good. 

Cross-exafnincd:  Characters  of  Mc- 
^lillan,  Everington,  Hill  and  McRae 
good;  saw  defendant  short  time  before 
he  left;  had  moustache. 

M.  G.  McKay:  Prisoner  clerked  for 
witness  three  or  four  years;  character 
good;  heard  of  threats  of  lynching 
about  time  defendant  left. 

Cross-examined :  Didn't  recollect 
whether  threats  before  or  after  defend- 
ant left;  never  saw  him  with  beard  on 
as  now;  character  of  Robbins  good. 

R.  McCaskill:  Live  at  Laurinburg; 
known  defendant  for  eleven  years; 
character  first-rate;  heard  ol  some 
threats  by  a  Methodist  preacher  at 
Maxt<^>n;  defcndanf^  financial  condi- 
tion thought  to  be  easy;  regarded  as 
liberal  in  charitable  and  benevolent 
matters;  never  heard  of  any  threats 
from  Robeson  before  May  4th.  [Tes- 
tifies as  to  character  of  witnesses]; 
never  saw  prisoner  with  full  whisker.'-; 
first  intimation  had  of  defendant's 
leaving  was  when  oflicer  came  to  arrest 
him. 

A.  McKay:  Live  at  Laurinburg; 
prisoner's  character  good;  first  heard 
threats  again.st  defendant  by  preachtr 
Crow.son,  of  Maxton.  [(/n  cro.ss  exam- 
ination testifies  as  to  character.] 

\V.  H.  McLaurin:  Live  at  Laurin- 
burg; known  prisoner  25  jears;  ch^r 
actergood  from  boyhond;  heard  threats 
against  defendant  before  and  after  he 
left;  heard  that  sentiment  in  upper 
Robe.son  was  very  .strong  against  him; 
that  it  would  be  unsafe  for  him  to  be 
found  around  there;  was  alleged  that 
prisoner  was  at  that  time  at  religious 
meeting  at  Rockingham. 

Cross-examined:  Thought  it  was  on 
Tuesday  or  Wednesday'  before  defend- 
ant left  that  he  heard  that  Millard 
Moore  said  that,  while  he  did  not  kill 
Conolej-,  he  knew  the  mjin,  and  that 
man  was  D.  A.  McDougald;  never  saw 
prisoner  with  full  beard  before:  char- 
acters of  Robbins,  Hill,  McMillan, 
Everington  and  Livingston  are  good. 

Stephen  McLe.\n:  Lives  at  Shan- 
don;  Edgar  Gillespie  told  him  man 
called  at  his  house  between  daylight 
and  sunrise,  but  couldn't  tell  who  it 


was.  who  wanted  water  and  towel  j 
didn't  know  at  first  who  it  was,  but 
afterwards  found  out;  first  carried  out 
soiled  towel,  but  when  he  tound  out 
who  it  was,  got  out  clean  towel  from 
trunk,  and  his  wife  rasped  him  because 
towel  got  blacked. 

McRae:  Live  in  Laurinburg;  known 
pri.soner  for  ten  or  fifteen  years — char- 
acter good  from  boyhood:  heard  that 
Millard  Moore  had  said  when  arrested 
that  he  did  not  kill  Conoley,  but  knew 
who  it  was,  and  that  it  was  McDou- 
gald: heard  later  reports  from  Robesoti 
that  it  would  be  unsafe  for  McDougald 
to  be  found  in  that  .section.  [Testifies 
as  to  character  of  witnesses.] 

Adjourned  (or  dinner. 


TUESDAY  —  afternoon. 

I 

Stephen  McLean  recalled:  Gilles- 
pie told  him  that  it  was  defendant 
who  washed  black  off  face  April  22nd. 

Neill  Conoley,  nephew  of  vSimeort 
Conoley  and  son  of  John  Conoky: 
Some  time  before  12  o'clock  [The  day 
of  the  month  not  stated— Reporter]! 
after  spending  some  time,  father  and 
defendant  went  off  to  McBryde's  field', 
and  while  gone  witness  saw  clothes  in 
road  cart — old  hat:  pants,  handker- 
chief, box  blacking,  undershirt,  looked 
like  knit  shirt:  la.st  saw  clothes  after 
father  and  defendant  returned  froni 
McBryde's:  brother  asked  father  if 
must  take  clothes  into  house:  father 
responded  that  he  had  never  known 
anything  misplaced  around  there:  this 
was  about  9  o'clock  at  night  of  that 
daj':  McDougald  slept  in  house  that 
night  with  witness's  brother,  and  after 
he  came  from  McBryde's  never  went 
out  of  house  that  night:  door  fasten  d 
witii  a  .screw  over  latch:  hou.se  built  of 
logs;  lampblack  left  in  road-cart:  man 
with  McNeill,  to  whom  lampblack  wa.'5 
given,  said  his  name  was  Daniels,  and 
was  insurance  man;  questioned  wit- 
ness about  clothes;  witness  first  dis- 
covered that  clothes  had  been  stolert 
next  morning  early;  brother  Willie 
told  McDougald:  first  saw  strange 
tracks  about  house  after  Conoley 
killed:  was  uneasy  after  seeing  father 
and  McLauchlin  talking,  after  murder*; 
didn't  think  defendant  knew  about 
door  being  fastened  night  he  was  there, 
defendant  was  unea.sy  and  .scared  when 
he  found  clothes  were  gone;  forget 
what  he  said,  except  that  he  was  going 


16 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 


home;  was  accompanied  by  brother; 
wanted  witness's  father,  but  mother 
told  Willie  to  go  part  of  way;  house 
and  premises  searched  for  clothes  bj' 
Arch.  Graham  and  others;  it  was  after 
Mill  Prong  trial  that  McNeill  and 
Daniels  were  at  house. 

Cross -exam  I /led:  Never  testified  in 
case  before;  about  noon  that  defendant 
came  to  father's,  and  then  went  over 
to  McBr3-de's;  first  saw  clothes  in  road- 
cart,  nearly  in  front  of  door,  and  de- 
fendant had  gone  over  to  grand- 
mother's; accidentally  saw  clothes; 
this  was  first  time  anything  ever  had 
been  stolen  at  house;  defendant  said 
brought  clothes  to  carrj'  to  Mill  Prong 
trial;  didn't  think  father  ever  saw 
clothes;  didn't  know  that  prisoner 
ever  spent  the  night  there  before;  wit- 
ness was  not  at  Mill  Prong  trial;  de- 
fendant didn't  help  in  search  for  clothes 
in  woods;  long  slim  track  witness  saw 
about  father's  house.  Re-direct  b}' 
defence:  Father  objected  to  clothes 
going  in  house — might  go  in  barn. 

Effie  Conoley  :  Mother  of  Simeon 
Conoley  (murdered  man);  in  86th  year; 
have  not  walked  in  lo  or  ii  years; 
stricken  with  palsj-  32  years;  never  will 
forget  night  of  murder;  man  came  to 
fence — inquired  where  Wilkes  lived; 
boys  in  house  drying  feet  after  bath; 
Simeon  arose,  and  went  out  to  paling 
where  man  was,  who  asked  him  to  put 
him  in  way  to  Wilkes's  house;  Dan 
asked  who  man  was,  and  Simeon  said 
he  called  himself  Lum  Johnson — didn't 
say  whether  was  white  or  black;  Sim- 
eon put  on  shoes  and  started  out,  and 
man  came  into  yard,  went  to  well,  and, 
suppose,  drank;  when  Simeon  strrted 
out  of  yard  man  followed  slowly;  wit- 
ness was  looking  as  he  crossed  yard 
to  see  who  it  was;  moonshiny,  and 
wind  blew  something  like  coat  o.i  him, 
which  he  caught  up  in  hand,  and  wit- 
ness saw  up  to  his  hips,  and  he  had 
on  dark  pants;  man  followed  after  Sim- 
eon, and  they  had  not  been  gone  long 
when  witness  heard  pistol-shot;  man 
was  taller  than  Simeon  Conoley,  with 
long,  slim  legs — tall,  slender  man; 
Simeon  Conoley  was  taller  than  de- 
fendant; knew  Dan  AIcDongald  from 
cradle;  the  man  was  not  defendant — 
had  not  Dan's  look,  shape  or  anything; 
defendant  frequently  went  to  witness's 
house — nearly  every  month;  witness 
always  thought  the  feeling  between 
Simeon  and  McDougald  was  good — 
always  joyful  at  meeting,  and  while 


together;  defendant  was  kind  to  wit- 
ness and  all  the  other  members  of  fam- 
ily in  many  ways;  got  many  tilings 
they  all  needed;  saw  Daniels,  man  who 
said  he  was  insurance  agent;  came  to 
house,  but  witness  never  invited  him; 
Daniels  talked  to  her  and  daughter, 
Lizzie;  didn't  know  that  he  talked  to 
an3'one  else;  Morrison  and  Wilkes 
accompanied  Daniels;  John  Wilkes 
didn't  have  conversation  with  witness 
and  Daniels. 
Adjourned  to  Wednesday  morning. 

WEDNESDAY— MORNING   SESSION. 

D.  E.  McNair  Liveat  Laurinburg; 
conductor  on  C.  C.  R.  R  ;  on  duty 
April  2ist;  left  Laurinburg  6  A.  M., 
and  went  through  to  Wilmington  that 
day;  saw  defendant  come  from  father's 
residence  to  depot;  shook  hands;  de- 
fendant said  he  was  going  to  Alma 
with  witness;  remembers  prisoner  get- 
ting aboard  train  j  didn't  see  prisoner, 
or  have  conversation  with  him  be- 
tween Laurinburg  and  Maxton,  but 
saw  and  talked  with  him  between  Max- 
ton  and  Alma. 

Cross  examined:  Never  told  Capt, 
Elmore  that  saw  defendant  get  off 
train  at  Alma,  and  go  directly  to  depot 
of  Maxton,  Little  Rock  &  Alma  R.  R.; 
thought  it  about  7.10  when  train  ar- 
rived at  Alma;  couldn't  remember  how 
many  passengers  had  morning  April 
2ist;  A.  J.  Cottingham  was  on  train, 
and  got  off  at  Maxton.  [Records  of 
C.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  put  in  evidence,  and 
showed  two  flr.st-class  passengers  be- 
tween Laurinburg  and  Maxton,  on 
train  to  Wilmington,  April  21st];  didn't 
carry  defendant  to  Wilmington;  thinks 
told  Elmore  at  this  term  of  court  car- 
ried defendant  to  Alma. 

Dr.R.  F.  Lewis:  Character  of  Capt. 
McNair  good. 

Cross-examined:  Held  inquest  on 
body  of  Simeon  Conoley  day  after  kill- 
ing; saw  and  talked  to  Effie  Conoley 
that  day;  she  didn't  say  anything  to 
witness  about  murder;  witness  asked 
any  member  of  family  to  make  state- 
ment, as  he  wished  to  get  all  informa- 
tion possible;  inquest  held  in  Effie 
Conoley 's  presence;  told  that  Ed.  Con- 
oley was  only  one  who  went  out  to 
fence  to  see  man  who  hailed;  didn't 
examine  Effie  Conoley,  as  she  didn't 
seem  to  know  anything  about  it. 
[Verdict  of  coroner's  jury  produced  in 
court — that  Simeon  Conoley  came  to 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


17 


death  by  two  pistol-shots  in  head  at 
hands  of  man  calling  himself  Lum 
Johnson] 

R.  McCaskill  recalled:  Character 
of  Capt.  McNair  good.  [So  also  testi- 
fied W.  D.  B.  McEachern.] 

Horace  Jones:  Work  on  Capt  Mc- 
Nair's  freight  train;  train  started  from 
Laurinburg  6  A.  M.  April  21st;  that 
morning  saw  conductor  and  McDou- 
gald  talking  together:  defendant  got 
on  train,  having  something  like  rub- 
ber coat  on  arm,  with  package  wrapped 
in  paper;  knows  defendant,  and  has 
traded  with  him. 

Cross  examined:  One  or  two  other 
passengers  on  train,  whom  witness 
didn't  know;  saw  defendant  get  off  at 
Alma;  didn't  know  where  he  went 
from  there;  something  after  7  o'clock 
when  train  reached  Alma, 

J.  T.  Roberts:  Testifies  to  character 
of  defendant  and  witnesses. 

J.  T.  John,  Jr.  :  Live  at  John's  Sta- 
tion; character  of  Edgar  Gillespie  is 
pretty  mean. 

Here  defense  was  permitted  to  sub- 
mit testimony  given  at  Mill  Prong 
preliminary  trial: 

Saij.ie  Wilkes:  Saw  man  April 
2ist,  fourteen  miles  from  Simeon  Con- 
oley's,  on  public  road,  about  thirty 
yards  off";  looked  like  a  negro;  had 
duster,  broad-brimmed  hat,  valise 
strapped  on  shoulder,  hanging  down 
on  side;  couldn't  tell  whether  he  had 
beard;  was  tall  and  slender — tall  as 
Simeon   Conoley;  had  on  dark  pants. 

Henry  Smith:  Saw  man  April  2i.st; 
didn't  look  like  anybody  ever  saw 
before;  long  duster,  wide-brimmed  hat, 
long  moustache,  little  beard  under 
chin;  was  on  opposite  side  of  road; 
saw  him  in  Jeff.  Cobb's  lane;  about  2 
o'clock;  had  on  spectacles,  valise  on 
shoulder,  with  stick  run  through  it; 
wore  spectacles;  was  slim,  tall  man. 

Harriet  Humphrey:  Saw  man 
pass  on  road;  was  a  black  man — took 
him  to  be  a  negro;  tall  and  slender; 
had  on  duster;  package  on  shoulder, 
oilcloth  over  it;  had  on  glasses;  about 
2  o'clock  when  passed  house,  1%  miles 
Shandon. 

Epfie  Conoley  being  unable  to  at- 
tend court  on  account  of  feebleness, 
counsel  and  jury  (court  taking  noon 
recess)  went  to  her  room  at  "iNIartin 
House,  on  Bow  street,  and  the  follow- 
ing testimony  was  taken:  Can  see 
prettj'  well,  but  sight  not  as  good  as  it 
has  been;  man  who  went  off  with 
Simeon   night  of  murder  was   in  ten 


steps  of  house;  bright  moon  shining — 
bright  as  da\-;  can  see  eye  of  needle, 
but  hand  shakes  so  badly  couldn't 
thread  it;  saw  man  distincth;  the  day 
Daniels,  insurance  man,  came  to  house 
it  was  late  in  the  evening,  before  dark; 
it  was  12  o'clock  before  eat  supper  that 
night;  unusual  to  eat  so  late,  but 
daughter  Lizzie  was  onlj'  one  could 
cook,  and  she  could  not  get  away  from 
insurance  man.  who  remained  there 
all  night;  Daniels  talked  to  witness 
while  she  was  in  bed;  house  had  been 
searched;  couldn't  say  when  searched, 
only  it  was  after  murder,  and  before 
Lumberton  court;  Arch.  Graham,  K. 
Leach,  Norman  McLeod  and  Millard 
Moore  made  search  for  clothes — turned 
over  beds,  opened  trunks,  examined 
cribs  and  smokehouse;  can't  hear  well 
since  took. such  bad  cold  four  or  five 
weeks  ago;  never  made  an\-  statement 
different  from  what  she  has  made  at 
this  court;  at  coroner's  inquest  Dr. 
Lewis  didn't  ask  her  to  testily. 

Crossexatnined :  Was  sitting  s!ant-  1 
ing  from  door,  not  far  from  fire-place, 
night  man  called  and  Simeon  was 
killed,  on  south  side  of  house,  and 
Simeon  and  Daniel  were  drying  feet  by 
fire;  chimney  is  in  centre  of  west  end; 
had  to  look  slanting  out  of  door;  a 
negro  named  Tom  McRae  resembles 
man  who  went  with  Simeon,  but  didn't 
think  he  troubled  an5one;  didn't  see 
man  when  became  up  to  paling;  no- 
body went  out  but  Simeon  and  Edwin — 
a  little  boy;  Dan.  Conoley  was  tliere 
that  night;  couldn't  say  what  color 
coat  was  man  had  on;  wind  blew  coat 
about  him,  and  he  caught  it  up,  wit- 
ness seeing  up  to  his  hips;  didn't  .see 
color  of  hair;  couldn't  say  whether  he 
wore  beard  or  not;  Dr.  Lewis  came  to 
house  day  after  murder,  but  said  noth- 
ing to  her,  only  shaking  hands;  inque.st 
he'.d  in  hou.se;  D.  B.  McLauchlin  ar- 
rived before  Lewis,  and  expres.sed  sym- 
path}'  for  witness  for  what  she  under- 
went night  before;  replied  that  she 
thought  she  was  born  to  trouble;  re- 
members Edwin  McNeill  summoning 
her  to  court. 

WEDNESDAY — AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

D.  B.  McLauchlin:  Live  near  An- 
tioch,  two  and  a  half  miles  from  scene 
of  murder;  heard  of  murder  .on  evening 
of  April  22nd;  went  over  at  once,  and 
had  conversation  with  Efiie  Conoley; 
went  to  investigate  murder;  expressed 
sorrow  for  Mrs.  Conoley,  who  said  her 
cup  was  full ;  told  her  she  seemed  born 


i« 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 


under  ill-fated  star,  in  which  she  ac- 
quiesced; asked  her  if  she  saw  dis- 
guised man,  and  she  replied  in  the 
negative— that  no  one  saw  him  but 
Simeon  and  Edwin;  that  Lizzie 
"glimpsed"  him  at  fence  [Diagram 
exhibited,  showing  location  of  dwell- 
ing, chimney,  door,  kitchen,  well, 
gate  and  point  where  Conoley  was 
found — Reporter.];  didn't  think  any- 
one going  from  well  to  point  where 
Conoley  was  killed  could  have  been 
seen  b^'  an3-one  sitting  in  south  side  of 
dwelling;  well  acquainted  with  loca- 
tion of  premises;  Effie  Conoley  told 
witness  she  was  sitting  near  fire-place; 
one  could  hardl}'  have  seen  an3-body 
passing — sitting  where  she  said  she 
was;  know  M.  A.  McDougald,  father 
of  defendant;  had  seen  John  McDou- 
gald, but  did  not  know  him;  defend- 
ant has  no  other  brother;  know  Lizzie 
Conoley. 

Cross-cxamified:  Did  not  make  plat 
and  diagram,  and  not  po.sitive  that 
they  are  just  what  they  purport  to 
represent;  thought  kitchen  properly 
represented  in  diagram;  path  bends 
before  passing  kitchen;  fence  twelve 
or  fifteen  feet  east  of  the  building; 
couldn't  say  dwelling  sat  in  middle  of 
yard;  plat  not  made  by  any  measure- 
ments witness  knows  of;  if  Mrs.  Cono- 
ley had  been  sitting  in  south-east  cor- 
ner of  room  she  could  not  have  seen  I 
anyone  walking  from  well  on  out  to 
spot  of  killing. 

E.  A.  McNeill:  Live  in  Robeson; 
about  1%  miles  from  where  Conoley 
killed;  saw  Mrs.  Conoley  previous  to 
Robeson  court,  who  said  she  didn't 
know  why  they  summoned  her,  as  she 
knew  nothing. 

Cross-exammed  —  Acquainted  with 
Conoley  premises;  well  between  house 
and  gate— kitchen  south-east  of  house; 
one  sitting  in  south-east  corner  of 
house  could  not  see  anyone  walking 
on  path. 

Geo.  Cole  :  Live  in  Moore  county 
— doing  business  in  Richmond;  April 
2ist  carried  timber  down  creek  to  Alma, 
and  stopped  at  McKay's  store  at  Camp- 
bell's Bridge,  where  bought  crackers; 
didn't  know  Conoley;  never  left  pants, 
lampblack,  shirt,  &c.,  such  as  found 
at  Campbell's  Bridge;  thence,  at  lo 
o'clock,  went  to  place  of  work  up  river; 
had  one  haVid  with  him  that  night. 

Malloy  McBryde  :  Live  about  2  j^ 
miles  from  scene  of  murder;  know 
premises  at  Conoley's — frequently  been 
in  house;  chimney  in  west  end;  house 


sits  ea.st  and  west;  impossible  for  any 
one  sitting  in  south-west  of  house  to 
.see  one  walking  path  to  where  Conoley 
killed. 

Cross-examined — Anyone  sitting  in 
south-west  corner,  nearer  door  than 
fire  place,  could  see  one  in  path;  was  a 
path  leading  from  well  to  a  house  sup- 
posed to  be  crib;  night  of  murder  was 
calm  night. 

O.  E.  Ckowson:  Live  at  Maxton; 
saw  McDougald  Wednesday  in  Max- 
ton;  wanted  to  rent  house;  shoes  dusty 
and  mudd}';  about  10  or  11  o'clock;  de- 
fendant got  on  Laurinburg  train;  twnce 
got  defendant  oranges,  who  said  :  "Did 
you  ever  feel  like  3'ou  wanted  anything, 
and  nothing  would  satisfy  you  ?" 

Cross-examined — Shoes  looked  red 
and  muddy;  lived  at  Maxton  2  years. 

D.  E.  McBryde:  Live  in  Robe.son, 
about  8  miles  from  the  scene  of  murder; 
was  one  of  magistrates  investigating 
murder,  and  know  nothing  of  threats 
of  lynching  defendant;  saw  McDougald 
at  my  house  on  Wednesday  before  he 
left  country;  defendant  said  nothing 
about  clothes;  witness  remarked:  "Mil- 
lard Moore  or  public  has  saddled  crime 
on  3'ou;"  defendant  replied  :  "  How's 
that?"  witness  responded  that  it  was 
believed  that  man  who  got  on  train  at 
water-tank  was  murderer;  that  defend- 
ant was  accused  of  poisoning  uncle  fall 
before;  defendant  said  he  could  prove 
whereabout.s — was  at  Maxton  that  day, 
and  took  train  back  to  Laurinburg; 
a.sked  witness  if  he  didn't  think  he  had 
better  go  home;  witness  said:  "Yes, 
and  work  up  all  evidence  against  Mil- 
lard Moore  and  others  charged;"  de- 
fendant asked  if  witness  had  further 
use  for  him,  and  he  replied  not — unless 
more  came  against  him;  defendant 
hitched  up  and  left  with  John  Conoley; 
this  was  evening  of  night  clothes 
stolen. 

Cross-examined  —  Spoke  jokingly 
with  defendant,  who  was  with  John 
Conoley;  John  swore  out  warrant 
against  Moore  at  witness's  request;  M. 
A.  McDougald  employed  counsel  to 
prosecute  Kelly,  charged  with  the  mur- 
der. 

Ed.  McRae:  Lives  at  Maxton;  broth- 
er of  E.  F.  McRae;  heard  of  no  threats 
again.st  defendant  before  or  after  he 
left  country. 

Alex.  McKinnon:  Characters  of  Hec- 
tor Gilchrist  and  John  Williams  good. 

Evidence  for  both  sides  closed,  and 
announcement  made  that  bench  would 
hear  argument  in  morning.  Adjourned. 


On  Thiirsday  morning — Thanksgiving  Day — court  was  convened  promptly 
at  9:30  o'clock,  and  it  was  announced  from  the  beuch  that  counsel  might 
proceed  with  the  argument  in  the  case. 

Mr.  N.  a.  McLean  —  for  the  state. 

May  it  Please  Your  Honor,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury: 

This,  sir  (to  his  Honor),  is  largely,  if  not  alto- 
gether, a  question  of  facts  for  the  jury.  Did  the 
defendant  kill  the  deceased  ?  If  he  did.  there  can  be 
question  that  he  is  guilt\-  of  murder.  We  shall  expect 
3'our  Honor  to  charge  the  jury  that  if  the  evidence 
introduced  satisfies  them,  beyond  reasonable  doubt, 
that  the  defendant  is  guilty,  they  must  sa\'  so;  if  the 
evidence,  the  whole  of  it,  or  a  part  or  parts  of  it,  sat- 
isfies them  of  it  they  must  say  so.  Gentlemen  of  the 
juiy,  I  congratulate  3-ou  that  at  last  the  testimony  in 
this  case  has  been  concluded;  I  congratulate  you  upon 
the  fact  that  the  end  is  almost  in  view — that  your 
arduous  labors  will  soon  be  over.  I  trust,  gentlemen 
of  the  jur}*,  that  when  you  shall  have  concluded  your 
N  A  Mclean  labors  it  will  be  said  hy  all  men  that  you  have  arrived 

Of  lumberton  N  c  ^^  ^  lighteous  conclusion.  'I  believe  it  will  be  so  said. 
Unless  the  State  has  satisfied  you  beyond  reasonable 
doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  we  do  not  ask  or  expect  a  verdict  of  guilty 
at  your  hands;  it  the  State  has  .so  satisfied  you,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  it, 
and  we  believe  \'OU  will  give  it.  It  is  proper,  at  :he  outset,  that  I  should 
state  my  position.  Much  has  been  said,  much  will  be  said,  about  the  con- 
nection of  the  insurance  company  with  the  prosecution  of  the  defendant. 
It  is  a  fact  conceded  by  all  that  Mr.  Xeal  is  the  attorney  of  the  insurance 
company;  about  that,  gentleman  of  the  jury,  I  have  very  little  to  sa\-,  Mr. 
Neal  is  able  to  take  care  of  hiniself,  and  will  do  so.  This  much,  however: 
the  insurance  company  had  the  right  to  employ'  counsel,  or  he  would  not 
have  been  in  the  court-room  by  the  permission  of  his  Honor.  So  far  as  Col. 
Rowland,  Mr.  iNIcNeill  and  myself  are  concerned,  however,  we  have  no  con- 
nection, either  near  or  remote,  with  the  insurance  compan}-.  I  stand  here 
to  day  and  will  say  what  I  intend  to  say  in  behalf  of  law  and  order,  in  behalf 
of  truth  and  right,  as  \  conceive  it  to  be.  No  man  dare  say  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  State  in  this  case  have  done  aught  that  was  improper;  yea, 
more  than  that,  have  done  aught  than  was  their  sworn  duty  to  do. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  come  before  you  this  morning  with  a  feeling 
of  sorrow  and  extreme  regret.  I  did  hope,  vvhen  we  went  into  this  ca.se,  I 
did  hope  that  the  accused,  D.  A.  McDougald,  would  be  able  to  lift  this  hein- 
ous charge;  I  did  hope  that  at  least  there  would  be  a  reasonable  doubt  about 
his  guilt.  If  I  conceived  this  morning — and  this  is  not  an  empty  declara- 
ration — if  I  conceived  this  morning  that  there  was,  I  would  retire  instantly 
from  the  prosecution.  I  thir.st  for  no  man's  blood;  I  desire  no  innocent  man 
convicted;  I  will  prosecute  no  innocent  man  if  I  know  it  I  would  not  ask 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  convict  him,  as  I  shall  ask  you  to  do  to-day, 
unless  I  would  do  the  same  thing  sitting  in  your  places;  it  would  be  criminal 
in  me  to  do  so — highly  criminal  to  urge  you,  by  anything  I  could  say  or  do, 
to  convict  a  man  of  this  charge  who  is  innocent  of  it.  And  I  want  to  say 
this:  If,  in  the  course  of  anything  I  may  have  to  say.  if,  in  the  coui"se  of 
any  of  m\'  remarks,  I  shall  travel  out  of  the  evidence;  if  any  of  my  infer- 
ences are  unwarranted  by  the  evidence  as  we  have  heard  it,  I  am  not  only 
willing,  but  I  ask  his  Honor  to  correct  me;  I  am  not  only  willing  that  it 
should  be  so,  but  I  ask  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  to  correct  me,  and  I  will 
repair  the  wrong  done  immediately.  We  want  to  take  no  short  cuts;  we  do 
not  desire  him  convicted  on  technicalities  or  quibbles.  Nay,  more  than  that, 
gentlemen  of  the  jur}-;  I  ask  not  only  for  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  and 


20  The  Trial  of  Daniel  McDougald 

I  ask  not  only  for  his  Honor,  but  I  ask  for  you  and  myself  the  guidance  o^ 
the  HoU'  Spirit,  Who,  above  all  things,  prefers  the  upright  heart  and  pure, 
to  gui/le  us,  to  illuminate  us,  to  make  that  which  is  dark  bright,  in  order 
that  we  may  come  to  the  heights  of  duty. 

Now,  the  first  thing  in  this  case  was  the  oath  administered  to  you.  Let  us 
see  what  that  was;  "to  try  this  case,  and  a  true  verdict  give  according  to  the 
law  and  the  evidence."  Nothing  that  I  can  say  or  ma^'  say,  nothing  that 
the  counsel  for  the  defendant  can  say  or  may  say,  outside  of  the  evidence, 
can  aid  you  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion,  and  it  is  sufficient,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  to  cause  3'ou  to  question  the  soundness  of  any  position  when  he  who 
takes  it  has  to  go  outside  of  the  case  to  support  it.  Let  me  say  that  if  I  can 
aid  you  in  any  way  in  coming  to  a  proper  conclusion  in  this  matter  I 
will  do  so. 

It  is  said  by  the  State  that  the  defendant  is  the  murderer  of  Simeon  Conoley . 
Wh}^  was  this  charge  brought  against  the  defendant  ?  Why  this  accusation  ? 
Let  us  take  the  evidence  as  it  came,  not  as  you  heard  it — not  in  the  order  you 
heard  it  as  you  heard  it,  but  not  in  the  order;  let  us  begin  at  the  very  begin- 
ning, and  let  us  support,  as  we  go  along,  every  statement  by  some  reputable 
witness,  calling  the  name  of  the  witness.  We  will  first  call  your  attention 
to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  A.  W.  Haraer,  of  Laurinburg,  count}'  of  Richmond, 
a  gentleman  of  imquestionable  character,  a  neighbor  and  friend  of  the  defend- 
ant. He  sa3'S  that  the  defendant  brought  Simeon  Conoley  into  his  office  for 
the  purpose  of  having  a  medical  examination  made;  that  he.  Dr.  Hamer,  had 
never  seen  Simeon  Conoley  before;  that  he  was  introduced  to  him  by  the 
defendant.  The  examination  was  made  by  Dr.  Hamer;  the  application  was 
forwarded  b^'  Dr.  Hamer  to  Mr.  D.  C.  Roper,  a  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, who  states  that  his  business  is  farming  and  insurance.  About  the  time 
this  was  done  the  following  card  was  written  by  the  defendant  to  Mr.  Roper: 

Laurinburg,  N.  C,  Sept.  30,  1890. 
De.ar  Sir: — You  can  send  me  the  policy,  and  I  will  remit  to  you.     Mr. 
Conoley  arranged  it  with  me  to  pay  you,  so  you  can  send  or  bring  it  when 
you  come.  Yours  respectfully, 

(Signed)        D.  A.  McDougald. 

This  postal  card,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  identified  as  one  sent  by  the 
defendant;  he  has  not  denied  that  he  sent  it.  Upon  that  application  and  in 
answer  to  this  postal  card,  Mr.  Roper  tells  you  that  he  went  to  Laurinburg 
with  Mr.  Killebrew;  that  they  get  the  money  from  the  defendant,  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald, that  McDougald  met  them  near  the  door;  that  Killebrew  went  back 
into  the  rear  of  the  store  with  McDougald,  and  in  a- few  minutes  came  out 
wnth  the  money  and  without  the  policy;  that  he.  Roper,  the  insurance  agent, 
had  never  seen  Simeon  Conoley.  Simeon  Conoley  was  never  known  in  the 
transaction  until  he  was  brought  to  Dr.  Hamer  by  the  defendant  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  a  medical  examination  made,  and,  so  far  as  the  evidence 
shows,  he  was  never  known  in  the  transaction  after  that  until  he  closed  it 
with  his  life's  blood — the  defendant  applying  for  the  policy,  the  defendant 
paying  the  premium  of  $239,  the  defendant  taking  the  policy,  the  defendant 
keeping  the  policy,  the  defendant,  as  I  can  reasonably  argue  to  you  from  the 
evidence,  having  the  policy  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Simeon  Conoley.  If 
it  were  not  so,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  would  have  been  shown  3'ou;  we 
traced  it  into  his  possession,  and  it  never  has  been  traced  out.  Is  it  not  true  ? 
If  it  is  not,  correct  me.  The  beneficiary  named  in  the  policy  as  Margaret  E. 
Conoley,  or  as  she  is  sometimes  called,  Lizzie  Conoley,  so  far  as  the  evidence 
goes,  never  has  known  anj'thing  of  the  application  or  the  i.ssuing  of  the 
policy,  never  has  seen  it  or  has  had  it  in  her  possession.  Is  not  that  true? 
If  it  were  not  true  wh}-  was  not  Margaret  E.  Coneley  put  upon  the  stand  to 
say  that  it  was  not  true?  She  was  here  as  a  witness  for  the  defendant;  she 
came  here  lor  the  express  purpose  of  aiding  and  a.ssisting  him  by  all  means 
in  her  power.  If  she  had  said,  or  could  have  said,  that  there  was  any  arrange- 
ment between  her  and  the  defendant  by  which  he  was  to  do  this  act  for  her 
benefit,  she  would  have  been  put  upon  the  stand,  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Able,  astute  counsel,  as  are  tho.se  for  the  defense,  do  not  trifle  with  a  man's 
life  by  withholding  from  the  jury  evidence  so  important  as  that,  if  it  had 
existed. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  21 

But  they  say,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  "oh  !  he  was  a  liberal  man,"  and 
their  argument  will  be  from  that;  "  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  intended  this  as 
a  gift  for  his  aunt;"  if  the  evidence  of  his  liberality  was  offered  for  any  other 
purpose,  it  was  incompetent.  If  it  was  offered  for  an}-  other  purpose  than 
that,  it  does  not  prove  it,  and  it  does  not  prove  that  he,  a  man  worth  prob- 
ably from  $3,000  to  $4,000,  was  going  to  make  a  gift  cff  $239  per  j-ear  for 
twenty  years  to  his  aunt,  without  her  knowing  anj'thing  in  the  world  about 
it,  without  ever  having  told  her  of  it.  Liberaiitj-  !  Extremely  liberal  with 
the  same  aunt,  he  M-as!  Why,  the  old  woman  and  poor  old  Simeon  Cono- 
ley, as  defendant  himself  stated  to  Mr.  John  Currie  on  the  day  of  the  burial 
of  Simeon  Conoley,  this  same  aunt  and  Simeon  Conole\'  were  so  straightened 
that  they  had  to  give  a  mortgage  to  Mr.  Thomson,  of  the  town  of  Fa3ette- 
ville  here,  on  their  home.  How  did  his  liberalit}'  come  in  there  ?  Did  it  pay 
off  that  morgage  and  say  :  "Dear  Aunt,  I  make  a  gift  of  this  to  you;  I  want 
to  save  your  home  for  you."  Did  he  say:  "  Here,  dear  uncle,  I  have  paid  off 
this  mortgage,  and  I  hand  it  over  to  3-ou  as  a  gift;  I  want  to  save  your  home 
for  you."  No,  no;  he  paid  it,  but  he  took  a  transfer  and  held  the  place;  and 
thence  he  became  the  owner  of  their  home,  and  put  this  poor  old  uncle  of  his 
in  as  a  tenant.  Did  not  he  tell  John  Archie  Currie  at  the  burial  that  the 
place  belonged  to  him,  Simeon  Conoley's  place;  that  he  took  up  this  mort- 
gage and  since  then  he  has  owned  it?  "Well,"  says  Mr.  Currie,  "  has  not  he 
bargained  for  the  Carter  place.''"  "Well,  I  don't  know;  I  have  heard  it 
indirectlj-;  I  have  understood  that  he  paid  fifteen  hundred  pounds  of  lint 
cotton  on  it,  but  if  he  did  he  made  it  with  my  mules  and  my  guano."  Lib- 
erality! From  the  time  this  mortgage  went  into  his  hands  we  hear  no  more 
of  Simeon  Conoley's  ownership  of  the  land.  In  keeping  his  account,  the 
f  mounts  sent  there  are  not  chatged  up  to  vSimeon  Conoley  on  the  books  of 
Phillips  &  McDougald,  but  they  are  charged  up  to  D.  A.  McDougald's  larrn 
account. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3',  go  a  step  further.  We  have  here  a  stat- 
ment,  the  medical  examiner's  report,  signed  b\'  Mr.  Conoley-,  the  dead  man, 
in  which  he  represents  himself  as  being  in  sound  health,  in  sound  bodily 
health.  It  does  not  appear  from  Dr.  Hamer's  examination  or  from  Simeon 
Conole\''s  own  statement  that  he  was  in  any-wise  afflicted  on  the  12th  day  of 
September  1890;  we  never  hear  of  his  having  been  .so  until  after  the  issuing 
of  this  policy  of  insurance  for  $5,000.  And  then,  what  happens,  gentlemen 
of  the  jur^' .'*  [I  want  to  say  right  here  that  I  intend  to  ask  \ou  to  convict 
this  man  upon  evidence  of  which  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt]  After 
this  application  was  made  out,  after  the  issuing  of  the  policy-  of  insurance, 
what  happened,  gentlemen  of  the  jury-?  You  know.  The  defendant,  D.  A. 
McDougald,  yvithin  two  months  after  that  time  is  doyvn  at  Simeon  Conoley's, 
just  about  Christmas  of  the  year  1S90.  Any-  doubt  about  that?  George 
Currie — yvho  was  yvorking  for  the  defendant  then,  and  is  staying  on  this 
Conoley-  place  of  his  noyv,  yvho  has  not  been  contradicted,  who  could  not  be 
contradicted,  yvhose  character  could  not  be  in  anyyvise  impeached,  if  he  is  a 
colored  man — tells  y-ou  that  on  a  certain  morning,  soon  after  the  policy  yvas 
issued,  after  the  defendant  had  remained  at  Simeon  Conole^-'s  all  night,  he, 
the  defendant,  and  Simeon  Conoley  were  seen  going  along  together.  The 
next  yve  hear  of  Simeon  Conoley-  is  that  he  is  over  at  John  Wilkes's,  and  is 
in  a  verj-  strange  condition.  Now,  yvhat  Simeon  Conoley-  said,  gentlemen  of 
thejur}',  yvas  not  in  evidence  before  y-ou,  if  he  said  anything;  but  yve  knoyv  this: 
we  icnoyv  from  the  symptoms  described  by-  John  Wilkes,  the  choking,  suffoca- 
ting sensation,  the  rigidity-  of  the  limbs,  the  jerking  back  of  the  head;  from 
those  symptoms  described  by-  John  W^ilkes  and  b}-  Dr.  Currie,  Dr.  Prince, 
a  physician,  than  whom  none  stands  higher  in  North  Carolina — I  except  no 
man — Dr.  Prince  told  3'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3-,  that  the  S3-mptoms  be- 
tokened poison  b3'  str3-chnia  or  some  other  like  poison.  I  don't  propose  to 
dyy-ell  on  that  point;  the3-  will  say  that  other  things  could  hay-e  cau.sed  the 
S3-mptons.  I  yvill  sa3^  this,  gentlemen  of  the  jury:  he  said  that  lockjayv 
might  hay-e  produced  .it.  Well,  noyv,  did  Simeon  Conole3-  have  lockiayv  on 
that  da}-  ?  Has  there  been  an3'  eyndence  ?  Has  an3bod3'  syvorn  that  he  did  ? 
Has  an3bod3'  intimated  that  he  did  ?     You  know  he  did  not.     A  man  never 


22  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

has  lockjaw  and  p:ets  over  it  in  as  short  a  time  as  this,  and  besides  it  follows 
some  injur}'.  Dr.  Prince  said  furthermore,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  men- 
ingitis might  have  produced  sjmptoms  similar  to  these.  Did  Simeon  Cono- 
le}-  have  meningitis  ?  Has  anybod}- said  hedid?  If  he  had  meningitis  would 
not  he  have  been  prostrated  for  some  time  after  that  ?  Of  course  he  would. 
And  furthermore  on  cross-examination  he  stated  that  indigestion  probably 
might  have  put  him  in  that  condition,  but  he  had  never  heard  of  anyone  but 
an  infant  being  in  that  condition  from  indigestion;  and  upon  that,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  the  defense  will  argue  to  you  that  he  was  really  not  poisoned. 
On  that  testimony,  with  poor  Simeon  Conoley  occupj'ing  his  narrow  cell  as 
he  does  to-day,  where  malice  and  envy,  where  the  ball  of  the  assassin  cannot 
reach  him  any  more,  there  might  be  some  doubt  about  it,  except  for  the 
statements  of  the  defendant  himself  Let  us  see  what  he  said  about  it.  I 
will  not  put  a  hypothetical  case  to  you  now.  I  will  not  put  the  symptoms 
to  you  as  described  by  Mr.  Wilkes  or  Mr.  Currie,  but  I  will  put  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald c's.  D.  A.  McDougald,  and  see  what  he  says  about  it.  Dr.  Prince 
stated — deny  it,  contradict  it,  if  you  can,  or  correct  me  if  am  wrong — Dr. 
Prince  stated  that  the  defendant  himself  had  come  to  him  and  told  him  that 
he  had  heard,  had  just  heard  that  his  tenant — alwaN's  his  tenant,  never  his 
uncle — that  he  had  just  heard  that  his  tenant  had  been  poisoned  by  some 
candy  he  had  given  him  to  eat.  Is  there  any  uncertainty  about  that  ?  That 
he  had  just  gotten  a  letter  to  that  effect.  Is  there  au}^  uncertain  ring  about 
that?  That  disposes  of  the  poisoning  business;  that  is  McDougald  z'S.  Mc- 
Dougald: that  is  the  high-toned.  Christian  gentleman,  as  he  was  supposed 
to  be  then,  against  the  accused  murderer  now.  I  confess,  gentlemen  of  the 
jur\',  that  in  the  light  of  subsequent  developments,  whatever  he  says  ought 
to  be  taken  with  man}'  grains  of  allowance,  but  that  is  what  he  said  to  Dr. 
Prince,  and  it  has  not  been  denied,  and  it  cannot  be  denied.  From  whom 
did  he  receive  that  letter  informing  him  of  the  poisoning  of  Simeon  Conoley 
by  the  cand}'  he  gave  him  ?  From  Margaret  E.  Conoley,  the  beneficiar}'- 
named  in  the  policN'.  Is  not  that  the  truth  ?  Now  it  would  seem  that  D.  A. 
McDougald  and  Margaret  E.  Conole}'  and  all  those  who  were  present  on  that 
occasion,  ought  to  have  known  what  was  the  matter.  The  circumstances 
were  so  suspicious  that,  as  brought  out  b}-  the  defendant's  own  counsel,  when 
the  candy  was  put  into  the  hands  of  Mrs  Wilkes,  seeing  the  terrible  effect  if 
had  had  on  poor  Simeon,  she  immediately  threw  it  into  the  fire. 

Another  remarkable  circumstance:  The  application  shows  that  at  the 
time  this  police'  was  issued  poor  Conoley  was  fortN^-six  years  of  age.  D.  A. 
McDougald  had  gone  down  to  Mrs.  Effie  Conoley' s,  and  remained  there  all 
night,  with  this  candy  in  his  pocket,  or  somewhere  about  his  person,  or  under 
his  control  or  charge.  There  was  a  boy  there,  Edwin  Conoley,  his  first- 
cousin;  the  boy  did  not  get  a  particle  of  the  candy,  as  the  evidence  shows, 
not  one  particle;  buc  he  takes  his  old  forty-six-year  uncle  off  to  himself  and 
begins  to  feed  him  on  candy.  vStrange  circumstance,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
marvelously  strange.  The  boj's  and  the  girls  who  were  there  were  not 
allowed  to  taste  it;  if  they  were  they  have  not  so  stated  on  the  stand,  and  I 
presume  they  would  if  it  had  been  given  to  them — they  were  in  his  behalf. 
The  boj'S  and  girls  were  not  permitted  to  taste  or  touch;  Simeon  was  not  per- 
mitted to  take  it  in  the  presence  of  an3-body  else;  he  is  carried  off  to  himself 
by  the  defendant  and  dosed.  Well,  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  am  I  stating 
to  you  anything  that  has  not  been  proven  to  you  by  witnesses  whose  charac- 
ter cannor  be  impeached,  b}-  witnes.'^es  against  whose  chan'cter  not  one  word 
has  been  spoken  ?  I  ask  jonr  careful  attention,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  I 
will  be  as  brief  as  I  can.  Is  there  anything  else  connected  with  that.?  Let 
us  take  now  the  testimonj'  of  Powell  Hill,  a  young  boy  living  in  the  town  of 
Laurinburg,  a  clerk  in  Dr.  Everington's  drug-vStore.  He  opens  out  one 
morning  early,  which  is  the  same  day,  as  it  appears,  that  the  defendant  went 
to  Dr.  Prince  and  made  this  statement.  Powell  Plill  opens  the  drug  store 
early,  the  defendant  comes  in,  he  goes  behind  the  counter,  he  professes  to 
want  some  brandy-drops,  and,  in  the  words  of  the  young  man,  he  "  fumbled 
in  the  box  so  long,  and  around  the  box  there,"  that  he.  Hill,  spoke  to  him 
and  asked  him  if  he  could  not  get  what  he  wanted.     I  use  the  witness's  very 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  S$ 

words — that  he  "fumbled  in  the  box."  After  having  called  for  brand5'-drops, 
after  "fumbling  in  the  box,"  he  saN'S  he  "does  not  want  any;  believes  he 
will  get  some  out  of  the  show-case."  He  does  .so.  Again,  not  long  after 
this,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  same  da}',  after  this  fumbling  in  the  box,  he 
goes  in  and  talks  to  Dr.  Everington;  he  proposes  to  buy  brandy-drops; 
Everington  wants  to  sell  him  a  fresh  box,  telling  him  that  those  in  the  open 
box  are  stale.  No,  he  prefers  the  open  box,  he  wants  stale  ones,  takes  the  box 
and  goes  back  to  Dr.  Prince  with  it  in  the  rear  of  the  store,  and  calls  Dr. 
Prince's  attention  to  a  whitish  powder  on  the  top  of  the  cand\-,  which  proves 
to  be  strychnine.  Any  doubt  about  that,  gentleman  of  the  jury?  Nobody 
dares  question  Powell  Hill's  testimony  or  his  character.  Nobody  dares 
question  Dr.  Everington's  character.  Dr.  Prince  is  unassailable.  How  did 
the  poison  get  in  there?  Well,  there  is  a  lame  excuse — no,  I  should  not  have 
said  that;  there  is  an  attempt  made  to  account  for  its  getting  in  there,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Everington  did  have  some  strychnine  in  the  drug- 
store, but  he  tells  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  there  are  two  kinds  of 
strychhine;  that  there  is  a  powdered  strychnine,  and  there  is  a  crNStalized 
strychnine;  one  is  in  powder  and  the  other  in  flakes;  this  was  the  powdered 
str3chnine,  and  he  did  not  have  any  of  that  kind  in  the  store  open. 

Ought  not  that  to  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  charge  that  it  got  in  there 
through  the  carelessness  of  Dr.  Everington  or  his  clerk  ?  If  it  is  not,  how- 
ever, let  us  go  a  step  further.  This  was  on  Monda\-  morning.  The  young 
man,  Powell  Hill,  tells  ^-ou  that  on  Saturday  afternoon  preceding  this  Mon- 
day morning  he  sold  some  candy  out  of  this  box;  he  sold  to  one  or  mure, 
perhaps  to  several  parties,  of  it,  and  we  never  hear  that  auN"  one  was  the  least 
bit  sick  except  Simeon  Cor.ole\'.  There  seemed  to  be,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
a  fatalit}-  attaching  to  everything  that  at  that  time  went  through  the  hands 
of  D  A.  McDougald;  the  cand}'  was  converted  into  strychnine,  the  clothes 
were  lost  by  him,  the  foot-prints  were  rubbed  out  by  him,  and  everything 
that  he  .seemed  to  have  to  do  with  the  case  went  wrong.  But  to  go  back, 
now:  what  is  the  secret  of  that  cand}-  business?  In  the  light  of  the  testi- 
mony, what  does  it  mean?  It  means  just  this,  as  I  take  it,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Prince:  He  had  just  heard  that  his  uncle  Simeon  had  been 
poisoned  by  some  candy  that  he  had  given  him.  Having  heard  that  the 
statement  was  out  that  he  had  poisoned  him,  he  goes  to  work  in  the  usual 
bungling  way  of  a  criminal  trying  to  cover  up  his  tracks.  He  pretends  to 
Powell  Hill  that  he  wants  to  buy  some  of  this  candv;  he  goes  and  fumbles 
in  the  box  and  puts  the  powder  in ;  going  back  in  a  short  time  after  that  he 
is  the  first  man  to  discover  that  the  powder  is  in  the  box;  carries  it  to  Dr. 
Prince  and  Dr.  Everington  so  that  they  ma}-  see  it  is  in  there,  and  if  afterwards 
the  charge  is  brought  against  htm  that  he  poisoned  Simeon  Conoley.  why  he 
would  have  this  to  sa}-;  "I  got  the  candy  out  of  a  box  in  Dr.  Everington's 
drug-store,  and  I  can  prove  by  Dr.  Prince  and  Dr.  Everington  that  it  had 
strychnine  in  it."     Is  it  not  plain?     So  much  for  that,  gentlemen  of  the  jury. 

Now,  am  I  asking  you  to  convict  this  man  on  that  evidence  alone?  No,  I 
am  not  Let  us  get  up  a  little  nearer  to  the  time  of  the  tragedy.  Let  us 
see,  eentlemen  of  the  jur\-.  Let  us  follow  this  man;  let  us  tollow  D.  A. 
McDougald  as  he  went  in  and  out,  and  let  us  endeavor,  if  we  can,  to  trace 
him  from  the  morning  he  left  Laurinburg,  the  21st  of  April,  up  to  to-day. 
Let  us  see  if  we  can  follow  him;  let  us  see  if  we  can  keep  in  sight  of  him. 
He  left  Laurinburg  on  the  21st  of  April,  the  morning  of  the  murder.  Is 
there  any  doubt  about  that?  Certainh-  there  is  not.  His  own  counsel 
mu.st  concede  that,  because  they  put  witnesses  upon  the  stand  to  show  you 
that  he  did  so.  We  find  him  leaving  on  the  morning  of  the  murder.  Now, 
where  did  he  go?  Let  us  go  to  the  next  station  from  Laurinburg— Maxton. 
Was  there  an\'  doubt  about  his  being  at  Maxton  that  morning,  passing 
there?  There  is  not.  It  is  conceded  on  all  sides  that  he  did  go  from  Laur- 
inburg to  Maxton.  You  have  no  doubt  about  that,  gentlemen  of  the  jury. 
As  I  promised  to  do  at  the  outset.  I  will  give  you  time,  place  and  name  of 
witnesses,  reputable  witnesses.  He  was  at  Maxton,  at  least  got  there  A.J. 
Cottingham,  a  man  of  high  character,  says  he  came  down  on  the  train  with 
him;  Luther  McCormick,  a  man  whose  character  has  not  been  impeached, 


24  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

says  he  shook  hands  with  him;  D.  E-  McNair,  witness  for  the  defendant, 
states  that  he  brought  him  from  Laiirinburg  that  morning.  Now,  right 
here,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  there  is  a  little,  just  a  slight,  conflict  of  testi- 
mony. Mr.  A.J.  Cottingham  swears  that  McDougald  got  o^F  at  Maxton; 
Mr.  McCormick  swears  that  he  saw  him  there  immediately-  after  the  arrival  of 
train;  Mr.  McNair,  on  the  other  hand,  says  he  took  him  on  down  to  Alma, 
two  miles  below  Maxton.  Well,  now,  I  argue  to  you  that  you  mu.st  be  sat- 
isfied, that  you  ought  to  be  satisfied  that  he  got  off  at  Maxton.  Cottingham 
swears  to  it  absolutely;  he  has  no  interest  in  this  case,  near  or  remote;  he  is 
a  salesman.  McCormick  swears  that  he  got  off  at  Maxton;  he  has  no  inter- 
est in  this  case,  near  or  remote.  He  was  keeping  a  boarding-house  at  the 
time,  and  you  know  that  of  all  people  in  the  world  the  hotel  men  in  small 
towns  most  closel}-  notice  for,  look  at  and  scan  the  passengers  arriving  on 
the  trains,  and  boarding-house  people  do  the  same.  While  I  don't  care  how 
you  may  think  about  that,  3-et  it  seems  to  me  that  upon  that  testimony,  and 
upon  Mr.  McNair's  own  statement,  upon  his  report  made  out  at  the  time  by 
him,  showing  that  there  were  two  passengers  from  Laurinburg  to  Maxton 
on  the  train  that  morning,  which  corroborates  Cottingham  and  McCormick, 
you  ought  to  be  satisfied  that  the  defendant  got  off  at  Maxton  on  the  morn- 
ing of  April  2ist.  Cottingham  and  McCormick  are  also  corroborated  by  two 
of  the  defendant's  witnesses,  the  young  man.  Sellers,  who  keeps  a  storn  a: 
Alma,  and  the  young  man,  McGirt,  who  works  in  the  mills  at  Alma.  They 
tell  you  that  they  saw  the  defendant  on  Wednesday,  but  during  all  the  time 
that  they  had  been  there  the}'  had  neyer  seen  him  there  before.  Was  he  rit 
Alma  on  Tuesda}-?  If  he  was,  don't  you  know  he  would  have  gone  to  his 
brother's  house,  living  right  there?  Did  he  do  it?  He  did  not,  or  his 
brother,  who  was  here  in  court,  would  have  told  of  it.  He  went  there 
Wednesday  morning,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  not  Tuesday  morning. 

But  suppose  he  did  go  there.  Now,  the  defense  have  got  him  within 
two  miles  and  a  quarter — take  their  own  testimony — have  got  him  on  Tues- 
da}'  morning  within  two  miles  and  a  quarter  of  the  tank,  with  an  hour  and 
twenty-five  minutes  in  which  to  make  that  two  miles  and  a  quarter.  Where 
is  he  next  heard  from  ?  Why,  he  told  Mr.  McCormick,  and  that  is  not  dis- 
puted, that  he  was  going  off  on  the  Fayetteville  train;  that  is  not  questioned. 
Mr.  Cole,  a  section-master  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.,  a  man  having  no  interest 
in  this  case  at  all,  except  as  a  good  citizen,  tells  you  that  on  the  morning 
of  the  2ist,  about  7  o'clock,  a  man  came  to  where  he,  Cole,  was,  between 
the  crossing  and  the  tank,  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  Maxton;  that  the 
schedule  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  was  8:35  A.  M.  He  saw  the  man  and  talked 
with  him;  the  man  was  clean  shaven,  except  that  he  wore  a  moustache,  a 
light-colored  moustache,  as  the  defendant's  now  is  and  then  was;  that  he 
told  him  his  name  was  McDougald,  and  that  he  was  from  Laurinburg  in 
Richmond  county,  and  that  his  best  impression  is  that  the  defendant  is  the 
man.  Does  anybody  contradict  that  ?  Does  any  living  mortal  contradict 
that  ?  That  this  man  asked  him  what  time  the  freight  would  come  along 
— he  was  going  towards  Fayetteville.  His  repl}^  was  8:35.  The  man 
asked  if  he  could  get  on  at  the  water-tank;  he  told  him  yes,  but  that 
he  had  sufficient  time  to  go  to  the  depot  before  the  freight  came  in, 
and  the  man  did  board  the  freight  at  the  tank.  Right  there,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  a  little  fact:  It  is  alleged  that  the  defendant  boarded  the 
train  on  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  at  the  tank,  on  his  way  to  the  muider;  where 
did  he  board  the  train  on  C.  C  R.  R.,  on  his  flight  from  the  murder?  At 
the  tank  also.  Did  not  get  on  the  train  at  the  depot  on  his  way  out  to 
Shandon,  and  did  not  get  on  the  train  at  the  depot  on  his  way  out  to  Oregon, 
but  at  the  tank.  Well,  have  you  any  doubt  about  who  that  man  was,  even 
on  Mr.  Cole's  testimony  ?  He  says  he  thinks  this  was  the  man,  that  he 
told  him  he  was  the  man,  that  he  looks  like  him,  and  that  he  had  the  same 
package  that  this  man  was  proven  to  have  had  on  his  way  down  from  Laurin- 
burg that  morning  Not  one  living,  human  being  contradicts  it;  but  I  state 
further:  he  was  seen  by  Thos.  Smith,  a  colored  man,  a  hand  for  Mr.  Cole, 
who  said  that  he  had  some  conversation  with  him  about  the  arrival  of  the 
train,  which  was  pretty  much  the  same  as  Mr.  Cole's.     Now,  gentlemen  of 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  25 

the  jury,  he  boards  the  train.  Capt.  Lockamy  swears  that  he  took  on  a 
passenger  on  that  train  on  the  21st  of  April  between  8  and  9  o'clock,  who 
said  he  wanted  to  go  to  Shandon,  and  he  paid  his  fare  to  Shandon.  Is  there 
any  doubt  about  that  ?  That  he  told  the  man  that  he  could  go  on  the  passenger 
train,  but  that  the  reply  was:  "I  am  not  in  a  hurrw"  Preferred  to  ride  on 
the  freight  rather  than  on  the  passenger;  was  in  no  hurr}-;  wanted  to  he  as  late 
getting  there  as  possible,  because  he  knew  that  his  murderous  work  would 
best  be  done  at  night.  According  to  the  testimony-  of  Capt.  Lockamy  he 
had  a  duster  and  a  bundle  or  a  valise,  as  was  testified  to  by  Mr.  Cotting- 
ham,  by  Mr.  McCormick,  by  Mr.  Cole  and  by  this  colored  man. 

What  did  he  do?  Was  he  communicative?  No,  tor  he  sat,  in  the  words 
of  Capt.  Lockam3%  "  looking  at  the  floor,"  just  as  you  have  seen  him  do 
Irequently,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  during  the  progress  of  this  trial.  Well, 
now,  upon  that  evidence  you  ought  to  be  satisfied  that  he  was  the  man  who 
got  on  at  the  tank;  it  ought  to  satisf)-  you;  the\- said  he  looked  like  him, 
dressed  like  him,  had  opportunity  and  time  for  getting  there;  but  there  is 
one  person  who  swears  positively  that  she  saw  him  and  knew  him;  I^izzie 
McCoy  swears  that  she  has  known  him  since  he  was  a  little  boy;  that  she 
saw  him  sitting  at  the  tank  the  morning  of  the  day  that  Conole}-  was  killed. 
Who  says  that  is  not  true?  Who  denies  it?  Who  says  that  Lizzie 
McCoy,  colored  woman  though  she  be,  is  not  a  woman  of  character?  If  she 
had  not  been,  gentlemen  of  the  jury — with  all  the  searching  and  scouring 
for  witnesses,  bringing  them  from  four  or  five  counties  and  from  two  States, 
as  the  defense  has  done,  with  abundant  means  at  their  command — if  she  had 
not  been  a  colored  woman  of  good  character,  why  30U  most  certainly  would 
have  heard  it.  Now,  is  there  any  reasonable  doubt  about  his  being  there,  in 
the  face  of  all  this  testimon)-?  If  there  is,  why,  then,  human  testimony 
amounts  to  nothing. 

Well,  if  he  did  get  on  at  the  tank,  what  became  of  him,  and  if  he  didn't 
get  on  at  the  tank,  what  became  of  him  ?  If  he  was  not  this  man  who  had 
on  disguise,  who  was  it?  Truly,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  are  going  back 
to  the  nnthical  days  when  a  man  could  vanish  and  appear  at  pleasure;  if  he 
was  not  this  man  who  arrives  at  Shandon,  wh\-,  then,  the  story  of  his  dis- 
appearance between  Maxton  and  Shandon  will  rival  any  story  in  the  "Ara- 
bian Nights  Entertainment."  He  got  on  there  and  paid  his  fare  to  Shan- 
don, and  he  went  to  Shandon.  Now,  why  do  I  sa^'  that?  Because  he  said 
he  was  going  down  that  road,  because  he  was  seen  to  board  the  train,  be- 
cause he  paid  his  fare  to  that  point,  and  because,  there  is  no  testimony  that 
he  got  off  this  side  of  that  town.  Well,  who  saw  him  after  he  got  to  JShan- 
don  ?  I  desire  to  call  5'our  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Charlotte  Dumas, 
thit  she  saw  a  strange  man  pass  her  door.  She  was  then  living  in  the  sec- 
tion-house. On  the  day  Conoley  was  killed  he  passed  .soon  after  the  arrival 
of  the  freight  train  from  towards  Maxton;  had  a  du.ster  and  a  gripsack,  w^as 
going  on  the  Lumberton  and  Carthage  road  towards  McPhail's.  Does  any- 
body contradict  her?  Next  seen  by  W.  C.  Mcl'hail  on  the  21st  of  April 
after  the  arrival  of  Lockamj^'s  train;  a  man  passing  up  the  road,  wearing  a 
long  duster;  his  back  towards  him  and  could  not  see  his  face;  thought  he 
was  a  white  man;  had  on  a  dove-colored  duster;  a  medium  sized  man,  and, 
as  I  saw  him,  would  pass  Charlotte  Dumas's  house.  Does  anybody  contra- 
dict Mr.  McPhail's  statement?  Next  is  Jeff  Cobb,  a  young  man  living  one 
mile  from  Shandon  on  the  Lumberton  and  Carthage  road.  Now,  gentlemen 
ofthejur\-,  notice  that  with  each  successive  witness  we  bring  him  nearer 
and  nearer  to  the  scene  of  the  murder.  On  the  21st  of  April,  Mr.  Cobb  says, 
he  was  working  the  road,  and  between  one  and  two  o'clock  he  came  out  on 
the  road,  and  about  twenty  yards  above  him  was  the  man  going  from  him. 
The  man  wore  a  long  duster,  had  a  budget  on  his  shoulder,  which  looked 
like  a  valise  or  an  oilcloth  rolled  up.  He  saw  the  man  meet  Henry  Smith 
(col.);  Henry  Smith  came  on  immediately  to  Mr.  Cobb,  and  aske  1:  "did  \ou 
see  that  painted  man  ?"  Cobb  savs:  "How  do  3-ou  know  he  was  paintej  ?" 
"  I  seen  white  spots  on  his  knuckles  and  on  back  of  his  neck."  Fannie 
Meares  saw  him,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  just  below  Jeff  Cobb's  house;  she 
met  a  "curious-looking  man,"  as  she  describes  him;  had  on  spectacles,  hc-d 


26  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

a  moustache;  side-whiskers,  lono^  hair  which  cam?  down.  "  The  hair  looked 
straight  to  me,"  she  answered  in  reply  to  a  question  b\'  the  defense.  Now: 
right  there,  remember  what  Mr.  Jas.  C.  Robbins,  the  owner  of  the  wig,  said; 
he  said  it  was  a  woolly  wig,  but  he  had  taken  a  comb  and  combed  the  back 
of  it  out  straight.  He  passed  Henry  Smith,  and  saw  Mrs.  Humphrey,  and 
then  went  on  to  Neill  Smith;  Mr.  Smith  was  perhaps  as  near  or  nearer  than 
any  man  who  saw  him;  he  says  he  was  within  eight  feet  of  the  man  as  he 
passed;  had  on  a  long  duster,  a  budget  and  a  stick  through  it;  had  side- 
whiskers  and  long  hair  like  a  wig;  did  not  speak  to  him;  wore  a  broad- 
brimmed  slouched  hat,  and  was  about  the  same  sized  man  as  the  prisoner, 
and  went  towards  Sim.  Conoley's.  He  was  next  seen  by  John  Conoley, 
colored,  within  two  miles  of  Simeon  Conoley's.  After  that  he  was  seen  by 
Sallie  Wilkes,  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  Simeon  Conoley's. 

It  is  chargeii  in  the  description  of  this  man  passing  along  this  road  that 
one  witness  would  see  one  thing  and  another  another;  but  thej'^  agree  sub- 
stantiall}'  as  to  his  general  appearance,  and  if  every  little  discrepancj'  in  the 
testimony  of  a  witness,  or  several  witnesses  who  testify  about  the  same 
thing — if  every  little  discrepancy,  even  the  slightest,  means  that  the  witness 
has  not  sworn  truh-,  then  the  rules  of  evidence  and  the  rules  of  common 
sense  have  been  changed,  and  quite  recently,  too.  Why,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  all  that  can  be  required,  all  that  can  be  expected,  is  that  witnesses 
will  substantialh'  agree,  and  that  which  the  counsel  for  the  defense  will 
argue,  as  a  reason  for  your  not  believing  the  testimony,  is  the  strongest 
reason  in  the  world  why  you  should.  If  a  failure  on  the  part  of  each  wit- 
ness to  state  all  that  the  preceding  witness  had  testified  to — if  that  be  suffi- 
cient to  displace  his  testimonj',  I  can  take  these  same  rules  of  criticism  and 
strike  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  out  of  the  Bible.  Is 
not  that  so?  Biblical  scholars  and  critics  give  that  as  a  strong  reason  for 
the  genuineness  of  these  books;  they  have  not  a  manufactured  appearance 
about  them,  but  each  man  writes  as  if  he  were  writing  for  himself,  without 
reference  to  what  the  other  would  say.  These  witnesses  testif}^  as  if  each 
one  of  them  desired  to  tell  only  what  he  saw,  without  reference  to  what  the 
others  saw.  If  they  had  all  told  identically  the  same  story  it  would  be 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  the}'  had  met  and  compared  notes. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  was  this  man  who  passed  along  the 
accused?  Was  it  D.  A.  McDovigald?  If  it  was  not,  who  was  it?  If  it  vk^as 
not  D.  A.  McDougald,  where  did  McDougald  go  on  that  eventful  day  ? 
With  his  high  character  up  to  that  time,  would  not  he  have  well  shown,  if 
he  was  not  there,  where  he  was  ?  He  said  he  could  do  it,  and  if  he  was  not 
the  guilty  man  don't  you  know  it  would  have  been  shown  ?  I  argue  to  you 
thac  he  was  the  man,  because  he  had  been  accustomed  to  wearing  a  disguise, 
if  not  identical  with  this,  similar  to  it;  and  the  strange  part  about  this  is 
that  he  never  commenced  to  wear  these  disguises,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion of  the  testimony,  until  after  this  insurance  policy  was  issued.  Then 
we  can  see  him  put  on  disguises  at  home,  acting  his  part  so  well  that  those 
who  were  raised  up  with  him  could  not  recognize  him;  those  who  clerked 
in  the  same  store  with  him  could  not  recognize  him;  a  complete  success  as 
an  actor — was  informed  that  he  was,  and  knew  that  he  was.  I  argue  to  j-ou 
that  he  was  the  man,  because  of  the  fact  that  this  disguised  man  had  a  wig 
and  whiskers;  side-whiskers,  similar  to,  if  not  almost  identical  with,  those 
the  defendant  borrowed  of  Jas.  C.  Robbins  two  or  three  da3'S  before  the 
murder.  Is  not  that  true  ?  Did  he  not  do  it  ?  I  argue  to  you  that  he  was 
the  man  because  of  the  fact — it's  a  small  circumstance,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  a 
circumstance — that  when  he  was  approached  by  Robbins  for  the  return  of 
the  wig  and  whiskers,  he  promised  several  times  after  the  murder  to  return 
them,  and,  when  pressed  to  do  so,  came  up  with  the  whiskers,  saj-ing  he 
had  lost  the  wig.  Where  did  he  lose  it?  Has  it  ever  been  accounted  for? 
I  argue  to  you  that  he  was  the  man  because  of  the  fact,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  we  have  been  told  by  the  witness  that  at  these  concerts  he  was 
acting  the  part  of  an  old  man,  and  3^ou  have  heard  that  as  he  came  up  to 
the  scene  of  the  murder  he  limped  as  an  old  man.  I  argue  to  you  that  he 
was  the  man  because  of  the  fact  that  he  well  knew  these  premises,  and  the 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  27 

man  who  did  the  murder  eviden  th-  knew  them  well.  He  is  the  guilt}'  man 
because  of  the  fact  that  of  all  t  hose  who  have  told  30U  about  the  murder, 
he,  in  his  statement  afterwards,  was  able  to  give  the  most  minute  accounts 
of  what  occurred,  even  accounti  ne  for  the  secret  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
murderer.  Let  us  see  his  own  statement  about  it  to  Jas.  C.  Robbins  on 
Wednesday  after  the  murder  Said  he:  some  one  calling  himself  Lum 
Johnson — now  a  little  circumstance,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  a  small  one,  but 
a  circumstance:  some  one  calling  himself  Lum  Johnson — who  was  Lum 
Johnson?  He  was  a  colored  man  known  to  the  defendant;  Lum  Johnson 
was  no  new  name  to  the  defendant;  he  said  Lum  Johnson  had  called  his 
tenant  out  and  had  killed  him.  He  told  G.  S.  McMillan,  who  was  book- 
keeper in  the  same  store,  that  some  one  had  called  out  his  tenant  the  night 
before,  and  had  killed  him.  Two  or  three  days  after  this  he  told  Mr.  Mc- 
Millan that  the  murderer  had  placed  himself  near  the  path  over  which  Con- 
oley was  accustomed  to  pass,  and  had  stood  there:  he  supposed  the  murderer 
thought  that  Conole}'  would  go  home  that  night,  and  that  the  murderer 
would  intercept  him, "but  that  Conoley  did  not  come  home  that  way.  He 
told  D.  D.  Livingston,  on  the  train  the  day  he  left,  that  it  was  a  man  sup- 
po.sed  to  Ije  blacked  who  killed  Simeon  Conoley. 

Well,  now.  gentlemen,  the  next  thing  after  the  murder,  the  next  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  vState,  is  that  of  Edgar  (iillespie.  Now,  I  will  frankly 
say,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  that  if  it  depended  upon  the  testimonj-  of 
Ed.gar  Gillespie  alone  I  would  not  ask  you  to  convict  this  man;  I  would  not 
have  30U  to  do  it;  I  would  not  consent  to  j-our  doing  it;  I  would  rai  ,e  my 
voice  in  earnest  protest  against  your  doing  so,  if  it  depended  upon  the 
unsupported  testimony  of  Kdgar  Gillespie.  If  Edgar  told  the  truth,  why, 
that,  of  course,  would  dispo.se  of  the  case;  that  would  be  the  end  of  it. 
There  has  been  testimony  introduced  before  \in\  showing  that  Edgar  is  not 
a  man  of  good  character,  and  upon  hisiinsupported  statement  I  would  say  let 
the  man  go.  But,  bad  man  as  Edgar  Gillespie  was  proven  to  be,  there  is  one 
thing  connected  with  his  testimon\-  that  cannot  be  gotten  over.  Hector  Gil- 
christ is  not  a  man  of  bad  character,  for  it  was  proven  by  IMr.  Alex.  McKin- 
non,  a  witness  for  the  defendant,  that  Hector  (iilchri.st  was  a  man  of  good 
character,  and  Gilchrist  tells  \'ou  that  about  four  days  after  the  commi.ssion 
of  the  murder,  before  McDougald's  name  was  ever  mentioned  or  thought  of 
in  connection  with  it.  Edgar  Gillespie  told  him  that  McDougald  came  to 
his  house  and  washed  off  that  night.  Was  Edgar  friilespie  a  prophet.' 
Could  he  foretell  that  I).  A-  McDougald  was  going  to  be  charged  with  this 
offense,  and  that  the  insurance  compan\'  would  have  a  lawyer  here  to  prose- 
cute him?  He  was  the  only  man  in  the  known  world  at  that  time,  so  far  as 
the  testimony'  shows,  who  knew  that  I).  A.  McDougald  had  passed  along 
that  road.  Now,  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  that?  Leave  out  the  testi- 
mony of  Edgar  Gillespie  altogether,  you  cannot  leave  out  the  testimony  of 
Hector  (iilchrist.  IJut  for  the  sake  of  argument  leave  both  of  these  things 
out,  and  there  is  still  overwhelming  evidence  against  him. 

The  next  witness,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  is  Mr.  W.  H.  Herring,  of 
Laurinburg.  The}'  tell  j-ou  that  the  county  of  Robeson  is  hounding  this 
man  to  death— they  intimate  that.  As  a  citizen  of  the  count}-  of  Robeson  I 
desire  to  cast  the  intimation  back  at  them — it  is  not  correct.  The  good  peo- 
ple of  the  county  of  Robeson  wi.sh  the  murderer,  whoever  he  is- -whether  he 
be  high  or  low,  rich  or  poor -brought  to  the  bar  of  justice  and  punished. 
They  have  committed  the  care  and  keeping  of  that  matter  into  your  hands. 
They  have  said  that,  although  law  has  been  outraged,  although  the  blood  of 
this  murdered  man  cries  aloud  from  the  ground  for  vengeance,  yet  we  leave 
thf  matter  in  the  hands  of  a  jury  of  twelve  good  and  impartial  men;  we 
will  not  wreak  summary  vengeance  on  the  head  of  this  guilty  and  most 
unfortunate  young  man.  We  appeal  to  the  law  of  the  land — we  know  of 
no  higher  authority  than  that.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  nearly 
all  of  the  damaging  evidence — in  fact,  about  all  of  the  damaging  evidence — 
in  this  case  against  the  defendant  comes  from  his  old  neighbors  and  friends. 
Without  their  testimony  he  never  could  be  convicted.  Mr.  Herring  is  a 
Laurinburg  man,  his  wife  and  children  live  there;  he  is  doing  business, 


28  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDoiigald 

bookkeeping,  in  Robeson  county,  but  he  goes  to  Laurinburg  everj'  Saturday 
night,  returning  on  Mondaj-  morning;  he  saj's  that  he  saw  the  defendant 
on  the  morning  after  the  murder,  Wednesda\-  morning,  at  Maxton;  that  at 
7  o'clock,  at  that  place,  defendant  got  on  the  freight  train  going  to  Alma; 
that,  although  he  had  known  defendant  before,  he  had  to  look  at  him  awhile 
before  he  knew  him;  that  he  hid  a  drab  duster  and  a  valise.  Herring,  whose 
character  has  been  proven  good  by  defendant's  witnesses,  swears  that  he 
saw  lampblack  on  the  back  of  his  neck  and  under  the  eyes — lampblack  or 
soot;  that  when  he  got  off  the  train  at  Alma  he  hobbled  like  an  old  man; 
that  his  shoes  looked  like  he  had  been  walking  in  mud.  The  murderer 
walked  in  mud,  whoever  he  was,  gentlemen  of  the  jury;  from  the  testimony 
of  W.  S.  Graham  hewent  down  to  the  ford,  and  went  in  the  mud.  The  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Greenwald,  another  traveling  man,  who  has  no  connection 
with  the  case,  either  near  or  remote,  is  that  he  also  saw  soot  or  lampblack 
under  his  eyes.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  how  do  they  propose  to  meet 
that?  Why,  by  the  testimony  of  Capt.  Powers,  an  engineer,  who  saw  him 
on  Wednesda}-  morning,  looked  him  in  the  face,  and  did  not  see  anything 
the  matter  with  it;  b}'  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Sellars,  that  he  saw  him  a  few 
minutes,  talked  with  him,  and  did  not  .see  an3'thing  the  matter  with  his  face; 
by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  McGirt,  that  he  saw  him  a  few  minutes,  looked  him 
in  the  face,  and  did  not  see  an3-thing  amiss.  None  of  these  parties  were  with 
him  except  for  a  few  minutes;  they  don't  swear  that  lampblack  or  soot  was 
not  there— they  simply  say  the}-  did  not  see  it  there.  They  did  see  some 
remarkably  strange  things,  though.  When  Capt.  Powers,  the  engineer, 
pulled  up  at  Maxton  earU-  in  the  morning — Wednesday  morning,  the  morn- 
ing after  the  murder — between  six  and  .seven  o'clock,  he  found  the  defendant 
in  a  crouching  position  on  the  platform  of  the  depot,  the  onl}'  man  visible 
except  th.:  depot  agent.  The  only  man  to  be  .seen  in  the  town  of  Maxton  at 
that  hour  of  the  morning  was  this  defendant,  crouched  on  the  platform  ? 
Where  had  he  been  ?  Powers,  as  an  engineer  running  on  that  road  for  years, 
testifies  that  he  never  before  in,  his  life  saw  hiiu  at  Maxton  at  that  hour  in 
the  morning.  At  least,  ought  he  not  to  .show  where  he  spent  the  night, 
where  he  came  from,  and  with  whom  he  was?  The  witnesses  Sellers  and 
McGirt,  his  witnesses,  who  te.stif}-  to  seeing  him  at  Alma  on  Wedne-sdaj' 
morning  earl}-,,  the  morning  after  the  murder,  declare  that  they  never  saw 
him  at  Alma  that  early  in  the  morning,  or  at  all,  before.  Strange  circum- 
stance, gentlemen. 

Now.  I  call  )'our  attention  to  the  testimony  on  that  point — this  is  on  the 
morning  after  the  murder — of  Mr.  C.  E.  Crow.son,  who  sa3's  he  is  a  nephew 
of  Rev.  J.  T.  Crow.son,  who  looks  like  a  young  man  of  good  character,  and  I 
presume  he  is.  He  tells  you,  gentlemen,  that  he  saw  McDouga'.d  on  Wednes- 
day morning  at  Maxton;  noticed  how  peculiarly,  how  strangeh',  the  defend- 
ant acted.  He  went  early  Wednesda}'  morning  into  Crowson's  place,  and 
Crow.son  got  oranges  for  him  twice — hungrj^,  ravenously  hungry.  Crowson 
said:  "  He  ate  at  least  four  of  them  in  my  presence  " — ravenously  hungry. 
"He  asked  me,"  Crowson  said,  "if  I  was  ever  in  a  condition  that  I  wanted 
something,  and  couldn't  tell  what  it  was."  Already',  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
the  throes  of  a  guilty  conscience  were  on  him.  I  can  tell  3'ou  what  he 
wanted  at  that  time;  he  wanted  the  load  of  guilt  off;  he  felt  it;  it  was  on  him 
then,  it  is  on  him  now,  and  it  will  be  on  him  to  the  last  day  of  his  life.  God 
grant  that  it  ma^'  not  be  on  him  in  the  next  world! 

He  had  mud  on  his  shoes.  Is  that  testimony  contradicted,  gentlemen  of 
the  jur}'?  Not  a  S3'llable  of  contradiction.  The  next  witness  that  .sees  him 
is  J.  C.  Robbins,  at  Laurinburg,  his  own  friend.  Robbins  said:  "Hallo, 
Dan.,  what  makes  3'our  face  so  red  ?  "  Do  3-ou  know  what  it  was,  gentlemen 
of  the  jur3'  ?  The  washing  and  scrubbing — 3-ou  know  how  a  man's  face  will 
look  when  it  had  been  blacked,  and  he  has  had  to  wash  and  scrub  to  get  the 
black  off.  What  was  his  repl3' ?  Did  he  sa}':  "I  am  sick  this  morning 
from  fever,  and  nu"  face  is  flushed  ?  "  He  did  not  answer.  He  told  Robbins- 
that  a  tenant  of  his  had  been  killed  on  his  place.  Poor  old  man!  Poor  old 
murdered  Conole}'!     Going  out  in  the  goodness  of  his  heart  to  do  this  man — 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  29 

a  stranger,  as  he  thought — a  kindness,  the  last  act  of  his  life,  doing  a  deed  of 
kindness,  and  being  ruthlessly,  brutally,  maliciously  murdered  in  its  very 
performance!     Poor  old  murdered  Sim! 

J.  C.  Robbins  heard  the  defendant  tell  G.  S.  McMillan  that  he  was  tired 
— went  down  to  Wilmington  on  the  Tuesday  night  train,  and  came  back  on 
the  next  train.  This  is  the  first  falsehood  connected  with  the  killing — that 
he  had  gone  to  Wilmington  on  one  train  and  come  back  on  the  other.  Tired  ? 
I  guess  he  was  tired;  up  all  night,  as  he  said;  been  on  his  feet  all  night. 
Well,  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  has  been  proven  so  clearly  that  he  did 
not  go  to  Wilmington  on  Tuesday  and  come  back  that  I  will  not  argue  that 
question  to  you.  You  know  that  when  he  made  that  statement  he  uttered 
a  falsehood.  Why  should  he  do  it  ?  Why  should  this  man — whose  charac- 
ter, christian  character,  as  some  of  the  witnesses  state,  had  been  so  good 
before  that  time — why  should  he  start  out  on  a  career  of  falsehood  immedi- 
ately after  this  deed  was  perpetrated?  This,  and  only  this:  One  crime  al- 
ways brings  with  it  another.  Commit  one  crime  and  commit  another  tp 
hide  it,  cover  it  up.  Now,  what  did  he  tell  Mr.  McMillan  ?  What  did  he 
tell  him  about  it  the  da3-  after  the  killing  ?  He  told  him  that  he  had  gone 
to  Wilmington  on  the  freight,  had  come  back  on  the  passenger  train  that 
night,  and  remained  at  ^Nlaxton  all  night,  Tuesday  night.  Not  true.  Well, 
did  he  make  any  other  false  statements?  On  this  day  (Wednesday)  hear 
him  making  false  statements  to  J.  C.  Robbins  and  G.  S.  McMillan.  We 
next  hear  of  him  making  a  false  statement  over  at  Conolev's  as  to  his 
whereabouts.  He  told  Sallie  Wilkes  that  he  had  been  to  Wilmington,  was 
up  all  the  night  before,  upon  his  feet  all  day  Tuesday,  came  up  from  Wil- 
mington, had  some  business  at  Maxton,  and,  while  attending  to  it.  got  left 
there.  Lizzie  Conole}'  and  Mr.  McKinnon  heard  this  conversation;  if  he 
had  not  had  it  with  Sallie  Wilkes,  why,  Lizzie  Conoley  was.  here  in  the 
court-room,  and  would  have  contradicted  it;  and  he  told  John  Wilkes  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing. 

Well,  let  us  le.ive  that,  and  go  on  now  out  into  the  field.  He  is  seen 
by  John  Wilkes  covering  up  the  tracks.  He,  M.  A.  McDougald  and  John 
Wilkes  went  out  into  the  field  to  exaiuing  the  tracks.  While  there  Wilkes 
catches  D.  A.  McDougald  in  the  act  of  obliterating  the  tracks;  he  tells  Mc- 
Dougald, in  the  presence  of  his  father,  not  to  wipe  out  those  tracks — that 
they  might  be  of  .service  to  somebody  who  would  3et  find  the  murderer.  If 
it  were  not  true,  of  course  his  father  would  have  gotten  on  the  stand  and 
denied  it — of  course  he  would;  he  did  not  do  so  because  he  could  not,  be- 
cause he  would  not  tell  an  untruth  about  it — the  old  gentleman. 

Well,  we  must  hasten  on,  and  we  come  to  the  clothes.  You  have  heard 
a  description  of  the  clothing,  and  it  is  not  necessarv  for  me  to  go  into  that 
—I  say  .only  this  about  it:  As  testified  to  by  the  witriesses  for  the  State  and 
the  defense,  they  were  not  the  clothing  of  a  day-laborer — that  is  conceded  on 
all  sides:  a  fine  undershirt,  probabh'  never  worn  before,  nice  pants;  and  the 
defendant,  thinking  that  something  might  perhaps  be  made  out  of  that, 
calls  Mr.  ]\IcKinnon's  attention  to  it.  and  wants  to  know  if  he  don't 
think  that  the  man  who  wore  those  pants  had  been  plowing.  "No."  said 
Mr.  McKinnon;  "a  man  who  has  been  plowing  don't  plow  in  that  kind  of 
pants."  Wednesday  the  clothing  were  found:  on  Wednesday-  night  he  is  at 
Couoley's;  on  Thursday  the  burial  occurs;  he  is  there,  and  has  a  conversa- 
tion with  John  Currie.  vSays  Mr.  Currie:  "Mr.  Dan,  you  seem  to  be  wor- 
ried." "Yes,  I  was  in  Wilmington  night  before  last.  Tuesdav:  have  not 
slept  any  since."  Ls  it  not  true  that  he  said  so  ?  Was  it  not  false  when  he 
said  it?  "I  asked  him  if  the  place  did  not  belong  to  him.  He  said,  '  yes; 
that  his  aunt  Lizzie  mortgaged  the  place,  and  got  him  to  take  up  the  mort- 
gage, that  Sim  that  given  to  Thomson  in  Fayetteville;  that  the  diflkultv 
between  Sim  and  Moore  had  all  been  fixed  up^now.'  "  One  thing,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  remarkable  about  this  case  is  that  every  man  who  has  been 
named  in  connection  with  it,  except  the  defendant,  has  appeared  in  court, 
has  answered  all  the  questions  about  it,  has  shown  where  he  was,  and  has 
been  discharged.  An  attempt  was  made  by  the  defendant  to  saddle  the 
crime  on  Millard  Moore  and  John  Kelley.     "He  did  not  think  that  Millard 


30  The  Trial  of  Daniel  MeDougald 

Moore  had  done  it,  but  that  he  had  got  John  Kell}*  to  do  it  for  him;"  and 
here  during  this  court  he  has  had  that  man  whom  he  charged  with  commit- 
ting the  murder.  John  Kelh',  as  a  witness  in  his  behalf.  Not  satisfied  with 
the  murder  of  his  uncle,  he  wanted  to  do  double  murder.  Sa3S  he  to  A.  F. 
Bizzell:  "Millard  Moore  will  be  at  Duncan  McBr\de's  tonight;  have 
picked  men;  you  will  be  met."  Did  he  think,  if  he  could  put  Moore 
and  Kell\-,  either  or  both,  where  he  had  put  Simeon,  that  inquir}'  into  this 
matter  would  cease,  and  he  would  escape  ?  As  a  last  resort,  gentlemen  of 
the  jur\-,  as  a  last  resort,  the}-  come  in  here  and  try  to  show  that  a  young 
man  named  Cole  might  have  been  the  murderer— a  very  unfair  and  unjust 
imputation  against  him.  I\Ir.  Cole  is  sent  for  from  Moore  count}';  he  comes 
at  once,  and  shows  where  he  was.  Everybod\-  shows  but — (pointing  his 
finger  at  defendant).     Strange,  is  it  not?     Extremely  so. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  is  Thursday  after  the  murder.  The 
Thursday  after  the  murder  was  the  day  on  which  Conoley  was  buried.  Fol- 
low the  defendant  around  now.  We  see  him  again  on  Friday.  Mark  his 
devious  path  on  that  day.  Mr.  James  McBr^'de  boards  the  train  at  Maxton 
on  Friday  afternoon  about  4  or  5  o'clock,  the  train  going  to  Wilmington. 
On  that  train  he  finds  the  defendant,  and  what  did  he  tell  the  defendant  ?  He 
told  the  defendant  that  those  clothes  had  been  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge, 
and  to  get  them,  and  take  care  of  them.  Mark  that,  now:  the  first  that  he  hears 
about  the  clothes  he  is  told  to  get  them  and  take  care  of  them — that  they 
might  be  very  important  evidence.  What  does  he  say?  Ah!  sir,  his  guilty 
conscience  begins  to  smite  him;  and  at  once  that  fear  which  led  him  across 
the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  would  have  led  him  through 
it  if  he  could  have  gone — at  once  it  seizes  hira,  and  he  says:  "  Can  a  man  be 
convicted  on  circumstantial  evidence  ?"  The  guilt}-  conscience  was  working 
then.  Fear  had  gotten  hold  of  him.  Well,  follow  him  up  now;  keep  on  his 
track.  He  goes  on  to  Wilmington,  or,  rather,  Mr.  McBryde  leaves  him  on 
the  train  at  Lumberton  going  to  Wilmington.  The  next  witness,  Mr.  Jas. 
C.  Mercer,  tells  j'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  as  one  train,  the  train  from 
the  west,  comes  into  Wilmington  the  train  going  west  pulls  out  immediately 
— remember  that — and  that  on  this  afternoon  he  saw  MeDougald  at  the  depot. 
He  jumped  off  one  train,  boarded  the  other  immediately,  and  went  back. 
Why  was  that  ?  For  the  same  reason  that  a  fox  will  double  on  his  tracks: — 
to  confuse.  He  told  it  that  the  day  before  he  had  been  to  Wilmington, 
and,  fearing  that  some  evidence  might  come  up  against  him  sometime,  he 
thought  he  would  go  to  Wilmington  and  right  back,  and  in  the  hurry  and 
confusion  perhaps  it  would  be  forgotten  that  he  did  go  on  one  train  and  come 
back  on  the  other.  Well,  that  was  on  Friday.  What  about  the  next  day, 
Saturda}' ?  He  goes  over  to  Campbell's  Bridge  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
the  clothes.  George  Blue  says  that  the  clothes  were  hanging  up  in  the  oil- 
hou.se  at  Campbell's  Bridge;  that  he,  George,  was  at  the  engine,  and  he  saw 
]\Ir.  MeDougald  coming  up.  To  get  to  him  MeDougald  had  to  pass  the  oil- 
house,  or  did  pass  the  oil-house,  in  which  the  clothes  were  hanging  up.  Me- 
Dougald made  some  inquiry  about  the  clothes;  they  went  to  the  oil-house  to 
get  them,  and  found  them  gone.  George  testifies — and  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion of  it — that  just  about  five  minutes  before  MeDougald  came  there  the 
clothes  were  hanging  up  in  the  house.  He  made  inquiry  about  them  and 
covild  not  find  them.  Finally  they  looked  under  the  house,  and  found  them 
in  a  bundle,  about  six  feet  from  where  they  were — evidently  thrown  under 
there  hastily,  evidently  thrown  under  there  bj'  the  defendant,  evidently  put 
there  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  this  chain  of  evidence.  Well,  when  they 
were  found  what  was  done?  Why,  he  asked  this  man  George  Blue  what  he 
would  do  with  them.  Imagine  a  man  of  his  intelligence  asking  George  Blue 
what  he  would  do  with  them  ! 

Now,  that  was  Saturday  after  the  murder.  We  hear  of  him  again  on 
Sunday.  In  the  conversation  with  him  during  Friday  afternoon  Mr.  Mc- 
Bryde told  him  that  Mr.  McMillan  had  promised  to  get  up  some  information, 
and  that  as  soon  as  he  did  he,  McBryde,  would  let  him  know,  let  the  defend- 
ant know,  the  purport  of  it.  Went  to  Laurinburg  on  Sunday  and  saw  him; 
and  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  note  carefully.     The  Sunday  after  the  mar- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  31 

der  is  the  first  time,  as  the  evidence  discloses,  that  it  was  brought  to  his  at- 
tention that  the  man  who  got  on  at  the  tank  was  supposed  to  be  the  mur- 
derer. I  repeat  that  Sunday  after  the  murder  was  the  first  time  that  it  was 
brought  to  his  attention  that  the  man  who  got  on  at  the  tank  was  supposed 
to  be  the  murderer.  Mr.  McBryde  says:  "I  told  him  that  the  people  were 
pretty  certain  that  the  man  who  went  up  on  the  freight  train  Tuesday  was 
the  murderer.  I,  McBryde,  asked  if  he  had  any  further  information.  He 
says:  '3'es,  pa  has  a  man  spotted,  but  he  don't  want  to  give  his  name,'  " 
and  pa's  man  that  was  spotted  remains  unnamed  to  this  day.  Then,  for  the 
first  time,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  never  until  he  was  told  that  this  man  who 
went  up  on  the  train  was  suspected,  never  till  then  do  we  hear  him  sa\'  an3-- 
thing  about  being  afraid.  When  Mr.  McBiN'de  told  him  that  the  man  who 
went  up  on  the  train  was  supposed  to  be  the  murderer,  he,  the  defendant, 
then  said  he  was  afraid  of  his  life.  McBr\de  told  him  he  did  not  think  there 
was  any  danger,  etc.  On  Wednesday  he  sent  the  note  to  Capt.  Bizzell  to 
Ij'nch  Moore.  On  the  same  day,  Wedncsdaj',  he  was  with  Duncan  E.  Mc- 
Br5-de  and  with  John  Conoley.  What  did  McBryde  tell  him  ?  He  told  him 
that  the  man  who  got  on  at  the  tank  was  supposed  to  have  been  the  man, 
and  that  he,  McDougald  had  been  accused  of  poisoning  his  uncle  in  the  fall 
before.  What  did  he  say  to  McBryde  .'*  "That  he  could  prove  his  where- 
abouts." In  the  name  of  God,  has  he  ever  done  it?  If  he  could  prove  his 
whereabouts  and  show  that  he  was  not  on  the  train  that  day,  show  that  he 
was  not  at  Conoley' s  that  night,  show  that  he  was  anywhere  in  the  wide 
world  except  there,  why  he  would  have  saved  you  and  all  of  us  all  this  trouble 
and  expense,  and  he  would  have  saved  his  own  people  the  pain,  the  mortifi- 
cation, the  lieart-sufTering  that  they  have  undergone,  and  are  now  under- 
going. If  he  could  prove  his  whereabouts,  as  he  said  to  McBr\-de  that  he 
could,  how  cruel  to  his  own  parents,  how  cruel  to  his  own  character  and 
reputation,  that  he  has  not  done  so.  He  said  that  he  could  prove  his  where- 
abouts, that  he  went  to  Maxton.  The}'  say  he  did  not  stop  there.  McCor- 
mick  says  he  did;  he  himself  said  he  did;  that  he  did  go  to  Maxton  to  rent  a 
store,  but  took  the  train  back  Tuesday  evening  to  Laurinburg.  The  most 
natural  thing  that  an}-  man  could  do  when  charged  with  this  offen-se,  would 
be  to  say:  "  Oh,  well,  I  was  not  there;  I  can  show  it."  And  no  man,  no  man 
in  this  countr}'  of  his  character,  or  the  character  he  proved  him.self  to  be,  or  of 
an}'  other  character  for  that  matter,  would  be  likely  to  disappear  for  twenty- 
four  hours  and  not  be  seen  b}-  mortal  man,  so, far  as  the  evidence  discloses, 
unless  he  was  where  he  should  not  have  been  and  intent  on  mischief.  Mc- 
Brj-de  sajs:  "  He  asked  me  if  I  did  not  think  he  had  better  go  home,  and  im- 
mediately left  with  John  Conoley,"  and  that  night  the  clothes  m\-.steriously 
disappeared  and  have  never  been  found  from  then  till  now.  Strange.  Pass- 
ing strange. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jurj-,  I  don't  want  to  attack  anyone  and  I  am  not 
going  to  do  it.  I  shall  apply  no  harsh  names  to  any  witne.ss,  and  I  do  not 
care  to  refer  to  Neill  Conoley's  te.stimon}-  except  just  to  say  this:  you  re- 
member what  it  was.  The  purpose  of  his  testimony  was  to  show  that  D.  A. 
McDougald  could  not  have  gotten  out  of  the  house  that  night  without 
waking  him  up.  Upon  cross-examination,  the  3'oung  man  said  he  had  been 
working  all  day,  and  he  had  slept  very  soundly,  and  did  not  know  whether 
he  went  out  or  not.  When  he  said  that  the  importance  of  his  testimony 
vanished.  Strange,  though,  remarkabl\-  strange,  that  tho.se  clothes  should 
have  disappeared  the  very  night  of  the  day  that  McDougald  was  charged 
with  this  crime.  Now,  what  did  he  say  about  it?  Put  McDougald  against 
McDougald,  and  what  did  he  sa\-  aoout  it  ?  Well,  in  the  first  place,  were 
the  clothes  in  the  road  cart  at  John  Conoley's?  Mr.  Phillips  saw  Mr.  Mc- 
Dougald in  the  road  cart  that  day,  and  he  did  not  show  them.  He  asked 
jMcDougald  to  let  him  see  the  clothes  and  perhaps  he  would  know  them. 
McDougald  refused  to  do  so.  Mr.  Hodgin  saw  him  on  the  same  day,  and 
told  him  he  supposed  the  clothes  were  at  Laurinburg;  said  he  did  not  see 
them  in  the  road  cart,  and  that  McDougald  did  not  make  an\'  direct  reply 
to  that.  What  does  McDougald  himself  saj*  about  the  loss  of  the  clothes  ? 
On  the  next  da}-,  which  was  Thursday,  the  day  before  he  fled — ahd  remem- 


32  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

ber  that  he  fled  within  less  than  forty-eight  hours  after  he  had  this  conversation 
with  Dnncan  E.  McBryde — he  meets  Mr.  Purcell.  What  did  he  tell  him  ? 
Purcell  said  he  wanted  to  hear  about  the  clothes  The  defendant  replied 
that  he  was  notified  about  the  clothes,  that  he  had  carried  them  to  John  Con- 
oley's  the  evening  before,  forgot  to  take  them  out  of  the  road  cart,  and  they 
were  stolen.  Never  had  been  anything  stolen  there  before,  as  Neill  says. 
The  defendant  was  cautioned  b}'  Jim  McBr\-de  when  he  first  heard  of  the 
clothes  to  take  care  of  them,  that  the}'  might  be  important  evidence.  He 
knew  that  somebody  was  alter  them  at  Campbell's  Bridge;  and  j-et  notwith- 
standing all  these  things,  which  should  have  admonished  him  to  be  doubly 
careful,  he  says  he  forgot  about  it,  and  left  them  in  the  road  cart  all  night, 
and  that  somebody  stole  them — that  there  was  a  crowd  of  men  after  him  the 
night  before  at  John  Conoley's.  Who  composed  that  crowi,  gentlemen  of 
the  jury?  John  Coaoley  was  there  at  the  house,  his  sons  were  there;  they 
were  here  within  the  call  of  the  court,  and  if  there  had  been  a  crowd  of  men 
at  John  Conoley's  after  him,  of  course  they  would  have  said  so;  but  the  crowd 
dwindles  down  into  an  impression  of  Neill  Conoley's,  which  may  be  either 
of  one  track  or  two  tracks,  that  is,  one  foot  or  two  feet. 

Well,  he  mide  another  false  stateraeat.  That  was  on  Thursday.  Now, 
mind  you,  on  Friday,  the  very  next  day,  he  gets  on  at  the  water-tank  at 
Laurinburg,  according  to  the  testimon}'  of  Thos.  L.  McNair.  D.  D.  Living- 
ston, deput)'  sheriff"  of  Richmond  County,  boards  the  train,  sees  McDougald 
on  the  train,  knows  there  is  to  be  a  trial  of  this  matter  that  day;  knows  that 
McDougald  has  been  active  in  trying  to  fasten  it  on  innocent  men,  and  says 
to  him:  "  W^h}^  are  you  not  at  the  trial  ?  "  "  Oh,  I  have  business  to  attend 
to,  and  I  can't  go."  He  told  him  it  was  one  of  the  worst  murders  he  had 
ever  heard  of.  The  defendant  replied  that  he  had  been  to  John  Conoley's  a 
night  or  two  ago,  and  that  somebody  had  tried  to  cut  him  off"  from  the  house. 
Any  evidence  of  that  ?  Another  falsehood.  Said  Livingston:  "I  under- 
stand that  you  found  the  clothes."  "  Yes,"  replied  the  defendant,  "  they  are 
in  the  office  of  my  attorney,  Mr.  John  D.  Shaw,  Jr.,  and  will  be  at  the  trial." 
Now,  upon  that  point  Sheriff"  Smith  was  put  on  the  stand;  says  he  had  a 
conversation  with  Mr  Livingston,  and  Mr.  Livingston  told  him  that  Mc- 
Dougald said  the  clothes  would  be  at  the  trial.  I  don't  care  whether  he  said 
the}'^  were  at  the  office  of  his  attorney  or  not;  if  he  said  they  would  be  at  the 
trial  that  day  he  said  what  he  knew  was  false,  because  he  said  they  had  been 
stolen  the  night  before.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Mr.  Livingston  is  a 
Richmond  County  man;  nearly  all  of  these  witnesses  who  were  introduced 
are  friends  and  acquaintances.  Rev.  J.  T.  Lyon,  Methodist  minister  of  high 
character,  who  lived  at  Laurinburg  about  four  years,  and  knew  McDougald 
intimately,  saw  him  on  the  train  Friday;  got  on  at  Laurel  Hill,  and  further 
on  saw  McDougald;  walked  up  and  said,  "hallo,  Dan!"— of  course  not  sus- 
pecting anything — "where  are  3^ou  running  away  to?  "  It  stuck;  it  was  an 
arrow  sent  at  random  that  pierced.  Rev.  Mr.  L3'on  did  not  think  that  in 
truth  and  in  fact  he  was  running  away;  he  seemed  off"ended,  and  Mr.  Lyon 
apologized.  Now,  what  did  he  say  about  the  murder ?  Another  thing:  "I 
told  him,"  says  Mr  Lj'^un,  "'that  I  heard  it  was  a  white  man  disguised  as  a 
negro  who  did  the  killing;"  he  said  yes — and  I  want  you  to  mark  this  now — 
that  was  true;  that  his  aunt  and  a  little  boy  said  that  from  the  best  they 
could  tell  it  was  a  white  man  disguised.  Anybody  else  spoken  of  as  having 
seen  him  ?  Nobody  but  his  aunt  and  a  little  boy,  and  the}'  could  tell  it  was 
a  white  man  disguised  as  a  negro,  and  that  was  all  they  could  tell.  Well, 
now,  that  came  out  in  evidence;  his  aunt  and  little  boy  were  here,  here  in  his 
interest  and  behalf,  and  were  not  put  on  the  stand. 

And  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  regret  very  much  the  necessity,  I  re- 
gret exceedingly  much  the  necessity,  that  I  am  put  to.  I  wish,  I  truly  wish, 
that  it  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  say  what  I  must.  The}'  try  to  meet  this, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  by  the  declarations  of  this  old  lady — and  I  sj'mpathize 
with  her,  I  am  sorr}'  for  her,  I  am  truly  sorry  for  her;  I  would  not  say  any- 
thing against  her,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  I  know  how  she  feels;  if  she  had 
seen  her  grandson  in  the  flesh,  with  no  disguise  on  that  night,  she  could  not 
have  believed  that  he  would  do  it.     I  hope  that  she.  may  never  believe  it. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  33 

She  is  near  the  grave  now,  and  I  trust  that  she  may  live  under  the  delusion 
that  she  is  under  now.  But  this  much,  gentlemen  of  the  jurj-,  which 
makes  it  exceedingly  suspicious  I  shall  not  say  anything  against  the  old 
woman,  God  bless  her!  If  she  has  done  an^-thing  intentionally  wrong,  I  do 
not  sa\^  that  she  has,  but  if  she  has  done  anj'thing  intentionally  wrong,  I 
ask,  I  hope,  I  pray,  that  it  nia^-  be  forgiven  her.  She  wants  to  shield  her 
grandson  if  she  can — perfectly  natural.  But  what  do  you  sa}-  of  a  grand- 
son who,  in  order  to  shield  himself,  would  put  his  poor  old  grandmother  in 
the  state  in  which  he  has  left  her  ?  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  a  true  man  would 
have  bei.'n  led  to  the  scaffold  and  hung,  would  have  died  fort^-  deaths,  before 
having  done  that.  Man}-  a  man  has  died  for  the  truth,  to  preserve  the  truth. 
Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  mind  you  now,  he  told  Mr.  Lyon  himself  that 
it  was  Margaret  Conoley  and  the  little  boj-  who  saw  the  disguised  man,  and 
that  it  was  a  while  nian  disguised.  Of  course  if  his  grandmother  had  known 
all  she  says  she  knows  about  it  at  the  time,  it  being  so  much  more  than 
his  aunt  and  the  little  boy  seem  to  have  known,  why,  of  course,  he  would 
have  adopted  her  statement,  he  would  have  said  what  grandmother  saw;  but 
grandmother  is  not  mentioned  once;  "aunt  and  the  little  boy  said  from  the 
best  they  could  see,"  evidently  they  could  not  tell  very  well  in  the  dark  who 
it  was,  but  from  "the  best  they  could  see  it  was  a  white  man  disguised  as  a 
negro."  It  was  in  evidence  that  Margaret  Conole\-,  the  daughter  of  the  old 
lad}-,  says  she  "glimpsed  the  man."  They  were  here,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  they  were  not  put  on  the  .stand,  but  they  took 
the  poor,  old,  unfortunate,  decrepit  lady  and  put  her  on.  Well,  I  shall  not 
speak  of  the  contradiction,  gentlemen,  I  shall  not  speak  of  w'hat  she  said,  or 
what  was  said  in  her  presence  bj'  Dr.  Lewis,  the  coroner  of  the  count}-, 
who  was  there  investigating  this  matter,  trying  to  get  up  all  the  testi- 
mony he  could.  He  said  in  her  presence  lie  wanted  to  get  all  the  testimony 
he  could  get,  but  did  not  swear  the  old  lady,  because  she  did  not  profess  the 
day  after  the  murder  to  know  anything  about  it.  She  told  him,  D.  B. 
McLauchlin  and  Mr.  Edward  McNeill,  that  she  did  not  know.  Take  her 
own  statement,  and,  while  she  may  believe — in  the  weakness  and  feebleness 
of  intellect  incident  to  her  advanced  age — while  she  may  believ-e  every  word 
that  she  testified,  honest,  common  sense  is  against  it.  The  old  lady 
said  she  could  see  the  man;  did  not  know  what  kind  of  coat  he  had  on;  diH 
not  know  what  kind  of  beard  he  had,  or  whether  he  had  one  or  not;  yet  she, 
sitting  and  glimpsing  him.  could  tell  that  it  was  not  the  defendant.  Was 
not  expecting  the  defendant  there;  would  know  him  in  the  moonlight  in  dis- 
guise if  it  was  he;  could  tell  it  was  not  he;  when,  in  the  bright  blaze  of  lamp- 
light, in  his  own  town,  tho.se  who  were  there  could  not  recognize  him,  and 
when  he  knew-  they  could  not,  when  he  was  told  of  it. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  must  hasten  on.  Why  did  he  go  away.-' 
Well,  we  have  his  .statement  about  that  al.so;  he  told  Col.  E.  F.  McRae,  a 
man  of  the  highest  character,  as  proven  by  the  witnes.ses  on  all  sides,  a  man 
that  perhaps  some  of  you  know,  he  did  not  tell  him  that  he  was  afraid  of 
being  lynched;  not  a  word  of  that;  that  was  not  his  statement  made  to  his 
father.  I  doa't  know  what  he  told  his  father,  but  I  judge  it  was  an  untruth; 
if  it  had  not  been  his  father  would  have  been  put  on  the  stand  to  corroborate 
what  he  was  saying,  but  he  told  his  father,  according  to  the  statement  made 
to  McRae,  that  D.  E.  McBryde  said  that  if  he  did  not  mind  Millard  Moore 
would  fasten  this  thing  on  him,  and  knowing  the  character  of  Millard  Moore 
— listen  to  the  lameness  and  impotency  of  his  excuse — knowing  the  charac- 
ter of  Millard  Moore,  "rather  than  get  into  a  law-suit  with  that  man,  he 
would  leave  the  country."  Did  you  ever  know  a  man  to  run  away  to  Oregon 
to  keep  from  getting  into  a  law  suit  ?  Have  you  ever  heard  before  that  a 
man  of  high  character;  a  man  with  his  influence  at  that  time,  who,  with 
truth  and  justice  on  his  side,  could  have  crushed  Millard  Moore  into  the 
earth — have  you  ever  heard  of  his  running  away  to  Oregon  to  keep  from 
having  a  law  suit  with  anyone?  He  was  perfectly  willing  to  have  a  law 
suit  with  Millard  ]\Ioore  until  Jim  McBryde  and  D.  E.  McBryde  told  him 
w^hat  they  did  about  himself.  He  was  perfectly  wnlling  to  dispose  of  poor 
Millard  Moore  out  of  the  way  without  any  law  suit,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for 


S4  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

the  hand  of  Providence  interfering,  he,  perhaps,  would  have  had  poor  Millard 
swung  up.  He  says  his  father  advised  him  not  to  do  it — what  any- 
sensible  man  would  have  told  him — not  to  run  away,  not  to  do  anj'  such 
thing.  He  said  he  then  concluded  to  go  to  Rockingham  and  get  a  lawyer, 
and  when  the  train  came  along,  without  saying  a  word  to  anj-bodj- — did  not 
tell  his  father  where  he  was  going;  in  fact  did  not  tell  anyone — he  concluded 
that  he  would  get  aboard.  Before  the  conductor  came  around  he  concluded 
not  to  get  off  at  Rockingham,  but  to  go  on  to  Charlotte;  he  concluded  again 
that  he  would  not  stop,  but,  rather  than  have  a  law  suit  with  Millard  Moore, 
he  would  run  awa}';  went  from  Charlotte  to  St.  Louis.  You  would  think  he 
would  be  safe  from  poor  Millard  in  St.  Louis;  but  he  went  from  Charlotte  to 
St.  Louis,  Kansas  Citj-,  and  Washington,  Kansas,  where  hestaj-ed  two  weeks 
and  got  work  in  a  nurser}-;  thence  to  Portland,  and  Salem,  Oregon,  where  he 
sold  spectacles  for  two  or  three  weeks,  and  then  got  a  job  on  the  railroad, 
where  he  resided  and  was  arrested.  Was  Millard  Moore  after  him  all  that 
time  ?  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jur\',  it  was  the  spectre  of  poor,  murdered 
Simeon  Couole}-  that  was  after  him,  and  it  pursues  him  now  in  his  waking 
dreams,  and  it  will  pursue  him  to  the  last  da3'  of  his  life.  Never,  nevermore 
will  he  shake  it  from  him.  He  is  safe  from  Millard  Moore;  he  is  safe  from 
John  Kelly;  he  is  safe,  as  the  sequel  has  shown,  from  Ij^nching;  but  he  is  not 
safe  from  poor,  murdered  Simeon  Conolej'. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  whole  purpose  of  the  argument  for  the 
defense,  the  onh'  eftect  that  it  can  have,  I  make  bold  to  sa}-,  is  to  confuse 
your  minds.  I  do  not  mean  an3^  reflection  on  the  counsel  for  the  defendant; 
the}'  have  the  right  to  do  so,  a  legitimate  right,  but  the  whole  purpose  of  it 
is  not  to  prove — afcer  all  this  damaging  testimon}- — that  this  man  is  not 
guilt}',  but  to  confuse  \'Our  minds  a  little  as  we  go  along.  Take  the  uncon- 
tradicted testimon\',  and  it  wraps  this  man  so  tightU'  in  its  folds  that  he  will 
never  succeed  in  breaking  loose  from  it.  Lj'nch  him  !  Did  he  run  away  for 
that  ?  He  said  he  did  not.  Nothing  was  ever  heard  of  that  until  after  he 
left,  and  nothing  was  ever  heard  of  it  then,  according  to  the  testimony  of  his 
witness  Hargrove;  nothing  was  heard  of  it  then,  except  among  his  friends — 
that  was  hi.s  own  witness's  testimony.  Friends  going  to  lynch  him  !  Any- 
bod}'  going  to  h'nch  him  at  Laurinburg  ?  Whj',  of  course  not.  Never  heard 
of  it  until  after  he  fled.  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  flight  itself  would  not 
be  sufiicient  to  convict  this  man — not  that  circumstance  in  itself,  but  with 
all  those  other  things  unexplained  b}^  him,  not  explained  b}'  anN'bod}' — add 
that  to  the  rest,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  put  it  on  top  of  all  the  rest,  and  the 
p3'ramid  of  guilt  is  complete;  the  pj'ramid  is  complete,  and  the  sands  of 
quibbling  ma}'  blow  and  blow,  but  there  it  stands,  there  it  stands.  Fled 
because  he  was  guilty.  Flight  did  not  save  him,  though,  gentlemen  of  the 
jur}';  flight  cannot  save,  flight  cannot  ease  the  pangs  of  a  guilty  conscience. 
He  might  have  gone  and  gone,  and  all  the  time,  as  the  evidence  shows,  he 
was  saying  to  himself: 

"  Me  miserable  !     Which  way  shall  I  fl}'? 
Infinite  wrath  and  infinite  despair. 
Which  way  I  fl}'  is  Hell,  m3'self  am  Hell." 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  virtue  is  bold,  nothing  fearful,  or,  as  we  have  it 
in  H0I3'  Writ:  "The  wicked  flee  when  no  man  pursueth,  but  the  righteous 
are  as  bold  as  a  lion."  In  the  character  that  this  man  sustained  up  to  the 
time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense,  the  evidence  shows,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  it  was  another  case  of  Dr.  Jekel  and  Mr.  H3'de — that  he  was  one 
thing  to  all  his  acquaintances  and  friends,  but  that  when  the  real.self  came  out 
it  was  totall3'  different;  that  to  the  public  gaze  he  was  a  high-toned.  Chris- 
tian gentleman;  that  within  his  heart  he  was  a  scheming,  plotting,  planning, 
avaricious  murderer.  Character,  good  character,  is  greatl3'  desired,  more  to  be 
prized  than  great  riches.  But  of  course  character  ought  not  to  shield  and  will 
not  shield  an3^  guilt3'  man.  The  higher  the  eminence,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3', 
the  easier  it  will  be  to  fall  and  the  greater  the  fall.  If  he  had  been  some  de- 
based criminal,  raised  in  the  haunts  of  vice,  knowing  naught  from  the  cradle 
but  to  do  evil,  and  had  been  guilty  of  this  ofi"ense,  then  it  may  well  have 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  25 

been  said  that  society  and  Christian  people  had  some  hand  in  it,  that  they 
did  not  attempt  to  raise  him  up  from  the  position  in  which  he  was  born;  but 
born  as  he  was,  reared  as  he  was,  with  all  the  advantages  and  op- 
portunities that  he  had,  and  then  to  deceive  and  then  to  murder  !  Why,  it 
ought  to  make  the  condemnation  greater.  He  is  not  the  first  one,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  who  ever  fell  from  high  position.  He  is  not  the  last.  The 
first  recorded  instance,  as  you  all  know,  was  the  fall  of  Satan,  an  augel  of 
light,  from  Heaven  to  the  lowest  pits  of  Hell;  that  was  the  fir.st  recorded 
instance,  and  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  he  has  had  manj^  imitators  since  then. 
INIany  have  followed  in  his  track.  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  are  told 
that  the  spirits  damned  do  not  lose  all  of  their  virtues,  "4est  bad  men  should 
boast  their  specious  deeds  on  earth"— just  as  this  man  is  doing. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  my  labors  in  this  case  are  about  to  conclude. 
I  thank  you  for  the  very  patient  attention  that  you  have  given  me,  and  I 
trust  that  when  you  shall  have  rendered  your  verdict  that  it  will  be — I  am 
sure  that  it  will  be — a  conscientious  one.  I  am  sure,  whatever  it  will  be, 
that  you  will  take  this  testimony,  that  you  will  weigh  it  well  and  that  you 
will  render  your  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence.  If  you  will 
do  that  all  is  well,  and  I  believe  you  will  do  it.  I  do  not  know  any  of  you, 
o-entlemen  of  the  jury,  but  I  believe  you  will  do  your  duty.  In  what  I  may 
have  said,  and  in  what  I  have  said,  I  want  to  sa^'  that  I  entertain  no  malice, 
no  ill-will,  towards  this  defendant,  none  whatever.  I  simply  ask  for  justice, 
and  if  justice  carries  him  out"  into  the  sunshine,  to  liberty,  to  freedom  again, 
why  then  let  him  go.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  carries  him  into  the 
shadow  of  the  gallows,  why,  with  sorrowful  mind  and  with  sorrowful  feel- 
ings, we  will  go,  regretting  the  necessity  for  such  action,  deploring  it,  and 
still  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  resolved  to  do  our  duty  at  all  hazards.  This 
whole  evidence,  the  whole  evidence,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  shows  plainly 
that,  whatever  be  the  result,  the  defendant  has  brought  it  upon  himself. 


Hon.  J.  C.  M/vcRae— FOR  the  defense. 

May  it  please  your  Honor  : 

It  is  proper  that  at  the  outset,  at  the  opening  of  the 
case  for  the  defendant,  we  should  present  to  the  court 
those  prayers  for  special  instruction  which  we  deem 
pertinent  to  the  i.ssue  that  is  now  presented  to  the  jury. 
I  will  read  those  praj-ers  and  hand  them  up  to  your 
Honor,  which  read  as  follows  : 

Cumberland  Superior  Court — Nov'r  Term,  1891. 


State  ]  Prisoner's  Prayers  for  Special 

A.  MCDOUGALD.    (  Instructions. 

I.  This  is  a  case  in  which  the  State  relies  entirely 
upon  circumstantial  evidence  and  evidence  of  identity 
Hox.  J.  c.  macRae,  to  satisfy  the  jur}-  of  the  truth  of  the  charge  made  in 
of  FayetteviUe,  N.  c.     the  bill  of  indictment : 

2.  Every  material  circumstance  relied  upon  by  the  State  as  proof  of  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner  must  be  proven  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  jurj\ 

3.  All  of  the  circumstances  so  proven,  if  any  have  been  proven,  must, 
taken  together,  produce  such  a  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the  jury  of  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner  as  shall  remove  every  reasonable  doubt  of  his  guilt,  and 
leave  no  other  way  of  accounting  for  the  death  of  the  deceased  but  that  he 
was  murdered  by  the  prisoner. 

4.  Upon  the  whole  testimony,  if  there  shall  be  any  reasonable  h3'pothe- 
sis  consistent  with  the  prisoner's  innocence,  the  jury  must  render  a  verdict 


S6  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

of  not  guilty.  The  facts,  their  relations,  connections  and  combinations 
should  bs  natural,  reasonable,  clear  and  satisfaot  )ry.  .Vlien  such  evidence 
is  relied  upon  to  convict  it  should  be  clear  and  convincing  and  conclusive  in 
its  connections  and  combinations,  excluding  all  rational  doubt  as  to  the 
prisoner's  guilt. — State  z's.  Brockville,  io6. 

5  In  this  case  it  is  not  required  of  the  prisoner  to  prove  his  innocence, 
the  entire  burden  of  proof  of  guilt  is  upon  the  State. 

6.  One  of  the  essential  elements  necessary  to  establish  proof  of  guilt  in 
cases  of  circumstantial  evidence  is  the  motive  which  must  have  prompted 
the  accused  to  the  commission  of  the  crime  alleged. 

7.  In  this  case  the  evidence  fails  to  establish  satisfactory  proof  of  a 
motive  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner  to  commit  the  crime  with  which  he  is 
charged. 

8.  On  the  trial  of  this  action  the  prisoner  is  not  a  competent  witness 
except  at  his  own  request,  and  his  failuie  to  make  such  request  shall  not 
create  anj'  presumption  against  him,  and  shall  not  be  permitted  to  prejudice 
his  case  in  the  hands  of  the  jury. 

9.  The  defendant  in  an  indictment  has  alwa3's  a  right  to  give  his  good 
character  in  evidence,  and  in  cases  of  circumstantial  evidence  and  on  questions 
of  identity-,  as  in  this  case,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury  carefully  to  consider  such 
testimon}-  in  his  favor  in  arriving  at  their  conclusions  as  to  his  guilt  or 
innocence. — State  vs.  Henry,  5  Jones,  65;  State  vs.  Johnson,  ist  Winston,  151 ; 
Wharton's  Cr.  Law,  7th  ed.,  636. 

Gentlemen  OF  THE  Jury  :  I  bring  to  you  this  morning  no  glowing 
rhetorical  periods,  with  which  to  charm  5'our  fanc}-.  I  come  to  stand  before 
the  jury  as  man  to  man  and  breast  to  breast  and  to  discuss  under  the  pure 
light  ot  reason  the  facts  and  circumstances  which  have  been  presented  to 
3'ou.  It  has  been  a  long  time,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  since  I  have  had  the 
privilege  of  appearing  before  such  a  bod}'  in  this  county  in  a  capital  case. 
Like  my  friend,  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  I  congratulate  you, — I  would 
saj^  I  congratulate  m3'self  that  on  this  occasion  I  am  able  to  bring  the  case 
before  twelve  men  who  are  unbiased,  who  are  unacquainted  even  with  the 
man  that  the}-  have  to  try,  who  have  nothing  but  reason  and  conscience  to 
guide  them,  and  who  know  how  to  do  their  duty  as  conscience  ma}-  direct. 

In  all  the  line  of  celebrated  causes  which  have  been  reported  in  the 
books,  we  have  never  had  a  more  remarkable  one  than  this  which  now  takes 
your  attention.  A  young  man  of  Richmond,  of  the  highest  character,  who 
stood  as  any  of  us  might  be  proud  to  stand  before  his  fellows,  is  in- 
dicted in  the  county  of  Robeson  for  an  unnatural  crime,  the  taking  of  the 
life  of  his  own  near  relation,  under  circumstances  which  afford  no  palliation. 
He  is  indicted  in  the  county  of  Robeson  and  he  comes  to  the  people  of  Cum- 
berland to  give  him  a  fair  and  impartial  trial,  and  men  who  so  come  never 
fail. 

Of  the  unhappy  death  of  Simeon  Conoley  there  can  be  no  doubt,  there  is 
no  question,  but  on  that  fateful  night  of  the  21st  of  April  of  the  present  year 
he  was  brutally  murdered.  His  voice  is  closed,  no  eye  saw  the  dreadful 
deed  and  no  tongue  can  tell  who  did  it.  The  State  is  assisted  by  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company.  As  if  the  paraphernalia  of  the  law 
of  our  native  State  was  not  enough;  as  if  our  good  old  mother  was  too  slow 
to  avenge  the  death  of  her  sons,  this  foreign  corporation  comes  with  all  its 
detective  skill  to  aid  us  in  the  investigation.  And  now,  gentlemen,  we  will 
consider  what  you  know  to  be  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence;  that  is,  the 
State  with  its  able  coadjutors  proposes  to  prove,  and  you  have  heard  how 
my  distinguished  and  learned  friend  who  has  just  addressed  you,  upon  the 
line  of  facts  and  circumstances  which  it  contends  must  satisfy  3-ou  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  guilty  of  the  henious 
crime  with  which  he  was  charged.  The  State  forms  its  theory;  you  have 
heard  it  fully  developed,  ably  developed,  intellectually  developed,  and  you 
understand  now  the  theory  of  the  vState.  In  trying  a  case  of  this  kind,  gen- 
tlemen, you  fiud  that  the  bed  rock  upon  which  every  building  is  reared, 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  37 

and  the  first,  always  the  first  link  in  the  chain  of  circumstantial  evidence, 
to  change  the  figure,  is  f/ie  motive,  which  is  supposed  to  have  actuated  the 
murderer  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  with  which  he  is  charged.  Without 
motive,  the  man  who  did  this  deed  would  be  a  raving  maniac,  and  so  unles 
the  State  has  shown  you  the  motive,  it  has  taken  away  the  very  foundation 
stone  upon  which  it  attempts  to  erect  this  edifice.  Now,  W'hat  is  the  motive, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury?  I  shall  answer  the  remark  of  Tx\y  friend,  as  he 
passed  on,  and  he  tells  3'ou  that  the  motive  in  this  case  was  that  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  might  reap  the  benefit  of  an  insurance  policj'  which  he  caused  to 
be  taken  out  upon  the  life  of  him  who  is  now  deceased.  He  tells  you,  start- 
ing with  Dr.  Hamar,  that  ihe  prisoner  at  the  bar  brought  the  deceased 'to 
him  to  apply  for  insurance.  But  is  that  the  first  startling  point  in  this  case? 
If  he  has  left  out,  as  I  think  I  shall  be  abl^  to  show  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
jur}-,  before  I  have  concluded,  some  most  important  circumstances  as  he  ran 
along  the  line  of  his  argument,  I  shall  beg  permission  to  call  30ur  attention 
to  them  in  order  to  show  that  the  edifice  they  must  erect  is  not  formed,  as 
he  would  have  you  to  believe.  The  first  testimony  with  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter, the  first  starting  point,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 
carried  the  deceased  to  Dr.  Hamar,  examining  ph3'sician,  to  make  his  ap- 
plication to  stand  his  examination,  but  it  is  that  Mr.  Roper — and  I  refer  \ou 
to  his  testimony — the  insurance  agent  from  South  Carolina,  in  company 
with  Mr.  Killebrew,  an  insurance  agent  who  was  then  in  the  emplov  of  the 
same  com})any,  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Compan\-,  came  to 
Laurinburg,  soliciting  business,  and  they  went  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
then  in  good  standing  in  the  town  of  Laurinburg,  and  solicited  business  at 
his  hands.  The  beginning  did  not  proceed  at  all  from  the  pri.soner  at  the 
bar,  but  they  named  the  man.  Mr.  Roper  told  him  that  he  understood  that 
Mr.  Simeon  Conoley  desired  to  take  out  a  policy  of  life  insurance  and  had 
been  talking  to  some  other  agent  about  it,  and  he  wanted  the  influence  of 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  to  enable  him  to  get  the  business  for  him.  He  so- 
licited it,  and  so  far  as  the  evidence  in  this  case  would  throw  any  light  upon 
it,  it  was  the  insurance  agent  who  solicited  the  business  at  the  hands  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  instead  ot  the  pri.soner  having  come  to  the  examiner  and 
Ijrought  the  decea.sed  wilh  him.  This  may  seem  to  be  a  small  fact,  a  slight 
circumstance,  but  I  would  have  \-ou  see,  as  I  have  no  doubt  you  see  already, 
that  with  the  ingenuity,  not  of  ordinary  skill,  but  with  the  fine  Italian  hand 
of  detective  work,  they  have  attempted  to  bring  in  the  slightest  and  most 
unimportant,  the  most  trivial  circumstances,  to  cast  clouds  of  suspicion 
upon  the  prisoner  at  the  bar;  therefore  we  must  go  along  taking  these  cir- 
cumstances, and  watch  them  and  sift  them  as  wheat,  that  we  may  under- 
stand their  purport  and  their  relation  to  the  matter  which  we  have  in  hand. 
Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jurv',  for  whom  w-as  this  policy  of  insurance 
taken  out  ?  Was  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?  No.  Was  it 
for  the  benefit  of  his  father  and  mother  ?  No.  Was  it  for  the  benefit  of  any 
one  over  whom  he  was  supposed  to  have  had  peculiar  influence?  Not  a 
word  of  that.  Scarceh' a  whisper  of  it ;  simply  a  breath  from  my  learned 
and  ingenious  friend,  and  scarcely  that;  and  now  they  would  have  you  to  be- 
lieve that  the  motive  which  actuated  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  in  taking  the 
life,  as  they  sa}-,  of  his  own  uncle,  was  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  life  in- 
surance policy  in  behalf  of  some  one  else;  in  behalf  of  some  one  who  had 
relatives  living,  a  mother  living,  brother  living,  sisters  living,  son  living, 
all  of  whom  would  have  become  distributees,  as  the  nearest  of  kin,  before 
one  cent  would  have  reached  the  prisoner  at  tlie  bar.  Thev  say  that  he  fur- 
nished the  mone\-.  Did  he  furnish  the  money  ?  All  they  know,  gentlemen, 
is  that  the  insurance  agents  went  to  him  with  the  policy,  that  he  acted  as 
the  friend  of  his  uncle  who  desired  to  be  insured,  and  that'through  him  they 
procured  the  money  to  pay  the  premium,  $239.  We  must  take  it  all  ;  we 
cannot  take  out  one  sentence  in  a  postal  card  or  one  sentence  in  a  conversa- 
tion, and  leave  out  the  rest.  Take  all  or  take  none  ;  he  said  to  them  that 
his  uncle  had  made  arrangements  with  him — requested  him  to  make  this 
payment  of  the  first  premium.  Oh,  but  the  uncle  was  a  poor  man.  Several 
witnesses  have  been  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  you  that  he 


38  Tlie  Trial  of  Daniel  MeDougald 

was  unable  to  take  out  such  a  policy  of  insurance.  I  would  answer  you, 
gentlemen,  that  men  under  his  circumstances  are  the  very  ones  who  are  most 
desirous  to  put  themselves  in  that  condition,  that  they  may,  if  the}-  live  to  an 
advanced  age — for  you  remember  that  this  policy  was  a  twentj'-^-ear  policy 
— so  if  they  should  live  to  an  advanced  age,  when  their  physical  faculties 
fail,  and  the}^  are  unable  further  to  support  themselves,  that  the}-  may  have 
that  which  would  give  them  rest  here  in  their  old  age.  You  know  that  the 
country  is  hlled  with  insurance  agents,  representing  the  interests  of  difterent 
companies.  You  know  the  persuasiveness  with  which  they  approach  us, 
aifd  vou  know  the  influence  which  they  have  over  us,  and  how  we  are  anx- 
ious to  protect  ourselves  in  this  way;  and  what  is  mOre  natural  than  that 
Mr.  Simeon  Conoley,  in  the  fullness  of  his  strength,  as  he  was  then,  should 
wish  to  protect  himself  I  believe  it  has  been  whispered — I  forget  whether 
it  is  in  evidence  or  not — that  he  contemplated  marriage  at  the  time.  If  it  is 
not  in  the  evidence,  there  has  been  so  much,  gentlemen,  which  has  been  said 
of  this  case,  so  many  whispers,  so  many  reports,  so  much  which  may  influ- 
ence the  public  mind  against  this  unfortunate  man,  that  it  is  hard  to  keep 
along  the  line  of  the  evidence. 

IBut  that  is  not  all.  This  foundation  stone  is  two-sided.  Upon  it  is 
chiseled  the  insurance  scheme  ;  upon  the  other  side  it  is  said  that  he  claimed 
the  land  and  the  farm  and  the  property  there,  and  that  he  wanted  to  get  old 
Simeon  Conoley  out  of  the  way  that  he  might  be  sole  owner  of  all  that  prop- 
erty. There  is  no  evidence,  gentlemen,  that  the  property  upon  which  they 
lived  was  the  property  of  Simeon  Conoley.  There  is  not  a  word,  not  a  deed, 
not  a  writing,  nothing  to  show  you  that  it  was  ;  on  the  contrary  it  appears 
to  us  that  it  must  have  been  the  property  of  the  mother,  the  old  lady,  Mrs. 
Effie  Conoley,  whose  home  it  was,  and  who  lived  there  for  many  years. 
There  is  no  evidence,  then,  that  he  would  have  been  benefitted  in  the  slight- 
est, because,  if  it  had  been  the  property  of  Simeon  Conoley's  mother,  why, 
there  were  all  her  children,  who  would  have  inherited  it  before  he  did  ;  if  it 
had  been  the  property  of  Simeon  Conoley  himself,  it  would  have  been  a  long 
way  down  the  line  before  this  man  would  have  been  entitled  to  an  interest 
in  it. 

But  they  say  he  called  him  "  my  tenant,"  that  he  spoke  of  it  as  "  my 
property."  They  spoke  of  the  Thompson  mortgage  as  having  been  given; 
that  was  not  given  by  Simeon  Conoley  ;  according  to  the  testimony  of  my 
learned  friend  who  has  just  addressed  you,  it  was  a  mortgage  made  by  Eliz- 
abeth; it  had  been  taken  up  for  her  benefit,  and  we  do  not  know  how  much 
it  was,  they  did  not  favor  us  with  a  sight  of  it;  they  had  the  records  of  the 
County  of  Cumberland  beneath  their  feet,  and  they  might  have  shown  us 
the  whole  transaction,  whether  that  mortgage  had  been  satisfied  or  not,  but 
they  did  not  choose  to  do  it,  and  they  put  their  second  theory  simply  upon 
the  ground  that  he,  called  it  his  property  and  that  he  paid  the  mortgage 
upon  that  land.  Why,  gentlemen,  how  often  does  a  young  man  in  business 
in  town  speak  of  my  tenant,  my  property,  when  really  and  truly  he  is  rep- 
resenting another.  Have  not  you  heard  the  clerks  in  a  store,  if  you  were 
trading,  say,  "I  have  not  this  goods  to  sell;"  "I  have  not  that  piece  ot 
goods  that  you  want  to-day;  I  am  sorry  that  my  stock  is  so  low  in  that." 
Have  you  not  heard  men  who  are  in  the  habit  of  furnishing  supplies  to  the 
farmers  in  the  country  speak  of  "  my  tenants?"  It  has  got  to  be  a  word 
which  is  often  used  by  persons  who  are  not  the  owners  and  I  trust  never  will 
be  the  owners  of  the  property.  Still,  he  says  "  mv  tenant;"  "  my  land, that 
I  am  running  out  there;"  and  upon  this  idle  expression  they  would  have 
you  to  fasten  the  halter  around  the  neck  of  this  innocent  man  What  would 
have  been  the  consequence,  gentlemen,  under  these  circumstances  had  he 
taken  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley?  Was  not  he  already  kind  and  liberal  to 
them,  assisting  them  in  running  the  farm,  furnishing  them  provisions, 
mules  and  guano  to  make  their  crops?  He  had  a  man  there  to  help  him; 
he  had  a  man  there  to  take  care  of  the  crop  and  to  run  the  farm,  and  what 
would  have  been  the  consequence  of  taking  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley  but 
to  have  thrown  that  family  the  more  helplessly  upon  his  hands,  and  to  have 
required  him  to  employ  some  one  else,  as  he  did  the  moment  he  heard  of 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  39 

the  death  of  his  uncle,  when  he  went  there  to  make  arrangements  to  take 
care  of  the  family,  and  emploj'ed  others  to  go  there  and  take  the  place  of 
him  who  was  gone.  What  benefit  was  it,  gentlemen  of  the  jury?  How 
could  he  have  been  benefitted  b\-  the  death  of  this  man  of  his  own  blood  ? 
Fine  spun  theories  are  not  what  we  seek  when  the  life  of  a  man  is  at  stake. 
Facts,  circumstances,  links  in  a  ch'iin  which  have  not  a  flaw  in  them,  and 
which  must  put  guilt  upon  the  prisoner,  are  all  that  we  can  handle  when 
we  investigate  this  momentous  question. 

See  how  the}-  catch  at  every  little  straw  which  the  wind  may  blow 
along!  Here  under  the  signature  of  D.  A.  McDougald  is  the  damning  fact 
which  is  to  commit  him  to  the  gallows  and  a  felon's  grave.  How  it  would 
have  pleased  them  to  have  taken  out  one  sentence,  gentlemen  ofthejurj'. 
"  You  know  how  the}-  all  are,  30U  can  fool  them  to  death,"  reads  the  letter 
written  on  July  27,  1889,  to  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  who  lived  down  in  that 
countrj'  and  who  knew  something  about  the  troubles  which  he  had  with 
one  Millard  Moore.  "Dear  Sir:  Mr.  Moore  has  had  Simeon  and  myself 
warranted  for  trespass  on  ten  acres  of  land.  I  went  and  examined  and  found 
it  was  a  trespass  of  about  a  dozen  boxes,  and  I  settled  it  with  him  by  pacing 
$5  cost.  The  main  thing  that  I  wanted  to  ask  you  is  this:  Moore  claims  a 
deed  for  all  the  land.  Do  3'ou  know  of  such  a  paper  given  by  Simeon  or 
any  of  them. ^  I  think  that  it  is  all  bosh  about  such  a  deed,  and  they  all 
deny  giving  such  a  deed;  but  jou  know  how  thej'  all  are,  you  could  fool 
them  to  death." 

If  it  were  not  that  it  is  not  the  place  to  deal  in  anything  but  the  most 
serious  matter,  I  would  feel  like  going  back  to  tell  you  of  the  trial  of  Mr. 
Pickwick  for  a  breach  of  promise  of  marriage  with  Mrs.  Bardell,  and  the 
notes  which  he  had  written  to  her;  among  other  damning  evidence  against 
him  the}'  were  going  to  show  how  aflectionate  he  had  been  to  her,  one  time 
he  wrote  to  her,  "Dear  Mrs.  B.,  chops  and  tomato  sauce;"  he  was  coming 
home  to  dinner  that  day,  and  he  wanted  to  tell  her  what  to  have,  and  if  30U 
could  read  the  eloquent  language  of  the  learned  counsel  who  rang  the 
changes  upon  these  words,  \ou  ma}-  be  prepared  to  hear  him  equally  so 
when  he  wrote  under  another  date,  "  never  mind  about  the  warming  pan." 
What  has  this  letter  got  to  do  with  this  charge  ? 

Now,  is  it  necessary  that^I  should  say  anything  more  to  3-011  about  this 
matter?  The3-  brought  it  down  to  the  insurance  policN-;  that  is  the  heart  of 
the  motive,  the  insurance  policy  and  the  claim  that  he  wanted  the  property, 
in  both  of  which  I  trust  that  I  have  been  able  to  show  30U  that  there  was 
not  a  suflicient  motive  which  might  have  caused  this  man  to  perpetrate 
such  a  devilish  act.  Now^  a  large  portion  of  the  balance  of  the  argument 
and  of  the  theor}'  of  the  State  is  based  upon  the  doctrine  or  theor3'  oi  oppor- 
tunity.  The3-  sa3-  that  this  defendant  had  opportunit3-  to  commit  this  crime 
and  that  the3^  have  fully  proved  it.  It  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinar3- theo- 
ries, one  of  the  mo.st  unnatural,  one  of  the  most  improbable.  If  you  will  take 
it  now  and  strip  it  of  the  verbiage,  strip  it  of  all  the  eloquence,  magnicent 
language  and  the  flowing  periods  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  has 
so  vividU-  portra3ed  the  whole  thing  before  30ur  minds,  I  think  3-ou  will 
find  that  3-ou  have  the  most  absurd  theory  of  a  crime  that  ever  has  been 
made  in  a  court  of  justice.  Wh3-,  if  the  brightest  of  the  detective  story 
tellers,  if  Rider  Haggard  himself,  or  vStevenson,  or  an3- of  those  writers  of 
romance,  should  construct  such  a  plot  as  this  the  State  wants  you  to  believe, 
it  would  ruin  his  reputation  as  a  novelist  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  It  is  en- 
tireh-  improbable. 

Let  us  just  run  over  it  a  moment.  The\'  sa3'  that  this  man  is  a  murderer, 
the  murderer  of  his  uncle.  The3'  say  that  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  of 
April,  openU',  in  the  light  of  da3-,  in  the  gra3'  dawn  of  morning  it  was,  and 
the  da3'  was  coming  on,  that  he  went  down  to  the  water-tank  and  up  to  the 
public  depot  in  the  town  of  Laurinburg  and  that  he  went  and  took  his 
seat; — I  will  come  to  the  dusters  and  the  boxes  and  the  valises  and  the  oil- 
cloths, all  those  things  directly — but  there,  with  Mr.  Cottingham  and  the 
conductor  and  all  those  men  who  were  on  the  car,  he  took  his  seat  and  talked 
with  one  and  another  down  to  the  town  of  Maxton;  that  he  got  ofi'the  train, 


40  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  Me  Doug  aid. 

shook  hands  with  Mr.  Luther  McCormick,  told  him  that  he  was  irtiiu.cr  on 
up  the  Fax'etteville  road,  that  he  walked  out  to  the  water-talk  siMue  three 
hundred  j'ards  away,  that  he  procli^uied  his  name  to  fdl  who  were  there, 
that  he  went  from  there  and  got  upon  the  train  at  an  unusual  place,  that  he 
passed  the  town  of  Red  Springs,  which  was  almost  equally  as  near  to  the 
place  where  the  murder  was  committed  as  Shandon;  that  he  went  on  to  the 
tonn  of  Shandon,  that  in  the  broad  light  of  day  he  got  olTai  d  walked  by 
the  old  woman  Dumas's  and  under  the  window  of  Mr.  McPhail,  the  oflicer  in 
charge  of  the  railroad  depot;  that  all  this  time  he  was  a  nice  looking  young 
man  covered  with  a  duster  of  as  many  colors  as  Joseph's  coat,  that  with  this 
duster  of  man}-  colors  he  walked  along  tlipre.  What  time  did  he  start  along 
the  road  from  Shandon,  according  to  their  theory? — from  the  depot  on  the 
C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.to  one  of  the  largest  mills  in  the  county,  a  road  that  was 
traveled  all  the  time  by  men  and  women,  a  road  both  sides  of  which  were 
inhabited,  on  each  side  of  which  were  houses;  that  he  went  along  on  that 
road,  this  nice  looking  gentleman,  with  the  bland,  kind  features  and  innocent 
countenance,  as  he  passed  the  old  lady  Dumas,  putting  himself  where  he 
could  be  seen  b3'  ever}-  one  and  marching  out  u})on  the  road;  and  now,  after 
that  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  without  a  place  to  arrange  it, 
there  was  a  sudden,  wonderful  transformation;  presto,  change;  and  within  a 
mile,  within  less  than  a  mile  of  this  place  be  became  an  old  man  with  whis- 
kers, a  colored  man  so  black  that  he  shines  more  than  au}'  blackness  shone 
before;  that  he  was  thorotighly  disguised  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  and  I  am 
not  talking  now  to  excite  an^'thing  but  your  most  serious  attention,  I  want 
to  know  when  he  made  that  change.  If  it  was  the  man  that  they  saj^  got 
off  that  train,  a  nice  looking  white  man,  and  got  on  that  road,  I  want  to  ask 
you  to  consider  that  question,  when  did  he  make  that  change  ?  I  am  argu- 
ing the  case  sooner  than  I  expected,  I  was  just  going  to  give  you  the 
theory  of  the  State  about  it,  to  show  you  how  extraordinary  it  is  that  that 
man  in  a  single  instant,  without  time  for  preparation— some  of  you  know 
how  much  trouble  it  takes  to  blacken  a  man  and  disguise  him  and  change 
his  whole  appearance,  so  that  no  one  will  know  him — and  they  want  5-ou  to 
believe  that  in  a  moment  all  that  was  accomplished  on  that  open  road,  and 
that  then  a  person,  for  we  do  not  deny  that  a  person  of  singular  appearance 
went  down  that  road  that  day;  that  then  a  person  went  down  that  road, 
meeting  people  at  every  step,  and  still  so  badly  disguised  that  they  could 
tell  he  was  a  painted  man. 

Well,  that  is  not  all.  Proceeding  with  the  theory,  the  next  thing  is, 
that  after  having  accomplished  this  most  cruel  and 'brutal  murder,  that  he 
walked  some  eight  miles  through  swamps,  across  runs,  where  he  could  have 
washed  himself  with  perfect  ease — you  remember  it  was  a  beautiful  moon- 
light night,  bright  as  day, — where  he  could  have  gone  and  taken  off  every 
stain  that  was  upon  him,  where  he  could  nave  hidden  those  clothes  so  that 
they  never  could  have  been  found  till  judgment  day,  where  he  could  have  so 
regained  his  personal  appearance  that  he  might  become  as  he  always  was, 
and  so  make  his  appearance  among  men;  they  would  have  you  believe  that 
he  passed  all  these  opportunities  and  that  he  went  to  one  of  the  most  public 
places  in  the  county  of  Robeson,  to  Campbell's  Bridge,  where  the  rafts  are 
brought,  where  the  raft  hands  come,  where  there  is  a  large  mill,  a  saw  mill 
in  operation,  and  that  there,  instead  of  even  then  putting  these  evidences  of 
his  guilt  in  the  water  and  under  the  water,  that  he  carefully  lays  them 
down  upon  a  bank  in  sucha  place  that  the  first  man  who  came  along  there 
after  daylight  could  not  but  see  them,  take  them  and  make  proclamation 
that  he  found  them.  These  things,  if  done  by  a  man  in  his  right  senses, 
must  show  some  evidences  of  mentality  about  them,  must  show  that  he  at 
least  knew  what  he  was  doing  and  could  understand  the  consequences  of  his 
act  ;  and  so  they  would  have  5'ou  to  believe  that  this  man  brought  those 
clothes  there,  that  clothing  of  vi'hich  you  have  heard  so  much  and  of  which 
5'ou  will  hear  so  much,  and  laid  them  down  at  Campbell's  Bridge  where  the 
first  man  who  came  along  could  see  them;  and  is  that  all?  No,  gentlemen, 
he  retained  the  black  upon  his  face  still  after  he  had  taken  off  all  else,  and 
he  goes  and  searches  out  the  house  of  a  man  whom  he  knew  and  who  knew 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  41 

him  and  had  known  him  for  many  years,  Edgar  Gillespie,  and  that  he  there, 
after  "clever  daylight,"  calls  for  a  bowl  of  water  and  towel  and  soap,  and 
that  he  washes  himself  there  and  reveals  himself  to  Edgar  Gillespie,  and 
that  he  did  not  even  thank  him  for  the  soap,  water  and  towel,  but  just 
said  "good-bye"  and  walked  off.  Well,  I  am  glad  that  my  friend  did  not 
insist  upon  your  believing  the  testimony  of  Edgar  Gillespie;  even  he,  with 
all  the  ingenuity  with  which  he  has  been  able  to  weave  this  mesh  around 
the  prisoner,  could  not  ask  you  to  call  it  a  thread  in  the  mesh  which  he  wove 
around  him — so  Edgar  Gillespie  was  set  aside  and  placed  in  a  corner,  along 
with' Mr.  Phillips,  those  two  who  were  brought  as  the  most  important  wit- 
nesses for  the  State,  having  absolutely  failed  in  the  proof  of  tne  assertion 
that  they  attempted  to  make.  Now,  is  not  this  unnatural  ?  Is  not  it  im- 
probable ?     Is  not  it  such  a  story  that  no  sane  man  can  believe  ? 

Why,  gentlemen,  in  trying  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence,  as  you 
know  very  well,  it  is  made  up  of  separate  facts  and  circumstances,  and  we 
have  to  try  each  one  of  those  facts  and  circumstances,  just  exactly  like  we 
are  trying  the  main  issue  in  the  case,  because  upon  their  truth  or  falsity, 
Upon  the  question  whether  they  have  been  proven  to  the  absolute  satisfac- 
tion of  the  jury,  rests  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar;  and  so 
we  have  to  take  up  each  one  of  those,  and  when  they  come  to  show  you  this 
walk  which  the  murderer  took  and  to  bring  him  up  before  Edgar  Gillespie, 
they  utterly  fail,  telling  vou  such  an  improbable  story  that  you  cannot 
believe  it,  beside  the  crushing  testimony  which  we  have  brought  and  which 
I  shall  refer  to  a  little  later;  and  then  they  carry  him  after  broad  daylight  to 
the  town  of  Maxton,  with  red  mud  on  his  shoes;  they  carry  him  to  the  town 
of  Maxton,  gentlemen,  after  clever  daylight,  with  streaks  upon  his  face; 
thev  make  him  travel  that  road  from  four  miles  along  from  Campbell's 
Bridge  to  the  town  of  Maxton,  and  they  can  not  bring  a  soul  who  saw  him 
all  that  distance;  if  that  were  true,  if  it  were  true  that  the  man  committing 
that  deed  went  down  to  Campbell's  Bridge  and  laid  those  clothes  where 
they  could  be  seen  by  all,  that  he  went  up  to  the  house  of  this  man  and 
washed  himself  and  revealed  himself,  why,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  he 
washed  that  soot  off  his  face  and  revealed  his  natural  features  to  Edgar 
Gillespie,  it  would  have  been  the  face  of  a  howling  madman;  no  sensible 
man,  no  man  attempting  to  flee  from  the  consequences  of  his  crime,  would 
ever  have  done  it. 

[At  this  point  His  Honor  ordered  a  recess  for  dinner,  after  which  Judge 
MacRae  continued  as  fellows:] 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  before  the  dinner  recess  I  had  shown  you  the 
titter  fallacy  of  the  theory  of  motive  ;  I  had  enabled  you  to  dispose  of,  in  your 
mind,  the  foundation  .stone  upon  which  they  have  erected  this  edifice,  in 
which  they  charge  guilt  upon  the  prisoner.  I  had  called  your  attention 
further  to  the  extraordinar}'  and  the  unnatural  and  the  improbable  theory 
iwhich  they  have  advanced  with  regard  to  the  acts  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 
from  the  time  he  left  his  home  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  until  the  commis- 
sion of  this  act.  I  shall  have  now  to  deal  more  in  the  minutiae  of  the  case,  and 
will  follow  the  example  of  my  brother  in  going  over  the  testimony  which 
has  been  presented  to  you  ;  I  may  be  somewhat  tedious  to  you,  gentlemen, 
though  I  think  not,  under  the  circumstances ;  if  I  am  you  must  pardon  me, 
gentlemen  ;  I  stand  for  the  life  of  a  man,  I  stand  for  the  happiness  of  a  fam- 
ily, I  stand  for  the  good  name  of  one  to  whom  it  is  more  precious  than  his 
life.     Let  us  take  these  witnesses,  gentlemen,  as  they  come  along. 

The  first  fact,  the  first  thing  that  stands  out  in  this  case,  as  we  go  along 
— and  I  must  call  your  attention  to  these  small  points  in  order  that  you  may 
grasp  the  whole  matter  in  your  minds  and  consider  it  all — is  the  duster 
with  which  they  said  he  was  clad.  There  is  no  doubt  about  his  having  left 
the  town  of  Laurinburg  that  morning,  but  the  State  and  prosecution  labor 
heavily  to  put  upon  him  a  duster  as  a  means  of  identification,  as  an  unusual 
circumstance  at  this  season  of  the  year,  the  21st  of  April ;  but  the  prosecution 
broke  down  on  that  theory  by  the  very  first  witness  which  they  introduced 
— Mr.  Cottingham,  who  swore  they  all  had  on  dusters.  I  call  your  attention 
to  this  testimony,  and,  like  my  brother,  if  I  misquote  the  testimony,  I  assure 

r. 
r. 


42  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

you  it  will  not  be  because  I  wish  to  do  so.  Now,  Mr.  Cottingham  said  that 
all  wore  dusters,  and  he  said  "  I  had  on  one  myself."  This  was  a  remarka- 
ble duster,  gentlemen,  as  I  told  you,  resembling  the  coat  of  many  colors  ;  ac- 
cording to  Phillips,  it  was  a  mud-colored  duster  ;  according  to  Charlotte  Du- 
mas, it  was  a  light  looking  duster  ;  according  to  Mr.  McPhail,  it  was  dove- 
colored  ;  according  to  Fannie  Mears,  it  was  a  long  du.ster,  and  there  the 
specks  appear  ;  and  .some  one,  whom  I  have  forgotten,  said  it  was  a  bright 
salmon-colored  du.ster.  This  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  there 
was  no  duster  there,  but  to  show  you. how  fallible  all  human  testimony  is; 
if  you  had  heard  as  many  cases  in  court  as  some  of  us  have  of  circumstan- 
tial evidence,  with  regard  to  that  point  of  minor  detail,  you  would  not  have 
been  particularly  struck,  with  that  illustration  of  my  brother  about  the  gos- 
pels ;  it  coupes  down  from  the  old  books,  and  is  used  in  every  case  of  this 
kind  where  there  is  difference  in  the  testimony. 

Now,  let. us  go  a  little:  further,  gentlemen,  about  what  he  had  with  him. 
Well,  according  to- Mr.  Cqttjngham,  he  carried  a  satchel  ;  according  to  Mr. 
Luther  McCormick,  he  had  a  black  satchel  and  two  or  three  newspaper  bun- 
dles ;  according  to  Mr., Cole,  he  had  a  valise  or  a  bundle,  neither  a  satchel  or 
an  oil-cloth  ;  accordint?  to  Jim  Smith,  he  had  an  oil-cloth,  and  no  paper  bun- 
dle ;  according  to  another  witness,  he  had  a  valise  or  a  grip  ;  according  to 
Capt.  Lockamy,  he  had  some  sort  of  bundle  with  a  duster  thrown  over  it ; 
according  to  Lizzie  McCoj',  he  did  not  have  anything  ;  according  to  Charlotte 
Dumas,  he  had  gripsack  strapped  across  his  shoulder;  according  to  Mr. 
McPhail,  he  was  not  certain  about  his  having  anything  ;  according  to  JeiF 
Cobb,  this  man  that  appeared  on  the  road  was  a  different  man  from  the  pri,s- 
oner,  he  had  a  valise  and  oil-cloth  rolled  up  on  his  shoulder  ;  according  to 
Fannie  Mears,  there  was  a  black  valise  on  his  shoulder  ;  according  to  Henry 
Smith,  an  oil-cloth  ;  according  to  Mrs.  Humphrey,  there  was  .some  sort  of  a 
bag  on  his  back  tied  in  an  oil-cloth  ;  according  to  J.  C.  Conoley,  there  was  an 
oil-cloth  folded  up  and  strapped  across  his  back.  Gentlemen,  who  identified 
him  at  the  water-tank,  three  hundred  yards  from  the  town  of  Maxton  ?  Who 
identified  him  ?  Mr.  Cole  does  not  identify  him  ;  he  saw  a  man  there  on  the 
morning  of  the  2r,st  of  April,  four  hundred  yards  north  of  the  crossing,  about 
a-quarter  of  a  mile  from  Maxton.  He  says  "a  man  came  there  ;  a  clean 
shaven  man  except  moustache  ;  I  do  not  know  who  it  was."  You  know  how 
rumors  can  influence  the  memory  of  a  man.  how  opinions  grow  upon  a  man 
as  things  are  talked  about,  how  that  which  was  but  a  small  circumstance 
becomes  a  large  thing,  how  a  little  cloud  no  bigger  than  j'our  hand  over- 
spreads the  horizon,  and  the  rain  falls;  this  gentleman  saj's  that  but  for 
what  he  has  heard  since,  the  rumors,  he  never  would  have  identified  him  as 
the  same  man,  and  he  cannot  do  it  now.  Tom  Phillips  does.  Mr.  Phillips 
says  that  he  knew  him,  that  he  said  to  him,  "hello.  Mack,  what  are  you 
doing  here?"  and  that  he  told. him.  But,  unfortunately  for  Mr.  Phillips,  he 
was  not  ther^  ;  the  records  show  he  was  not  there  ;  the  telegraph  operators 
show  he  was  not  there  ;  the  yard  master  of  Fayetceville  depot  shows  that  he 
was  not  there;  the  master-mechanic  of  the  shops  here  shows  that  he  was  not 
there  ;  and  he  was  almo.st  willing  to  admit  it  him.self  when  he  came  back  on 
the  stand,  but,  in  order  to  leave  some  kind  of  an  impression,  do  you  remem- 
ber what  he  said,  gentlemen?  He  said  that  the  reason  he  came  to  notice 
him  then  was  because  of  his  unusually  shabby  appearance  ;  that  he  took  him 
for  a  tramp.  Every  other  witness  testified  that  the  man  was  dressed  with 
his  usual  neatness,  and  that  there  was  no  evidence  of  anything  of  the  kind. 
So  that  disposes  of  Mr.  Phillips,  the  only  man  who  identifies  him  on  that 
occasion.  And  while  I  am  on  that  subject  I  will  say  that  he  saw  him  at  a 
distance  of  four  hundred  yards  beyond  Red  Springs,  and  when  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  identify  him  if  he  had  been  there,  standing  on  the  front 
of  the  caboose,  he  said,  just  as  the  train  drove  up  to  Red  Springs,  when  one 
of  the  witnesses  here  yesterday  afternoon  said  that  they  measured  the  dis- 
tance from  the  place  which  Phillips  spoke  of,  and  it  was  four  hundred  yards 
from  the  depot  at  Red  Springs. 

Capt.  Lockamy  does  not  identify  him;  he  .says  that  a  man  got  on  the 
train,  but  he  never  has  said  that  it  was  this  defendant.     Mr.  Rufus  DeVane 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  43 

gentlemen,  was  a  State's  witness.  You  heard  us  ask  his  Honor  to  let  us 
put  in  evidence  the  subpoenas  for  witnesses,  and  3'ou  heard  some  objection 
and  some  discussion  as  to  what  we  wanted  to  put  in  a  lot  of  subpoenas  for 
witnesses  for.  I  wish  to  show  you,  gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Rufus  DeVane, 
known  to  you  all,  who  would  not  lie,  was  a  witness  for  the  State;  that  after- 
wards he  was  subptenaed  for  the  defendant,  and  had  to  be  sent  for  and 
brought  here  after  he  had  been  discharged  by  the  State.  Those  gentlemen 
who  are  appearing  on  the  other  side  are  honorable  men — far  be  it  from  me  to 
impute  anv  motive  to  them  other  than  that  which  would  actuate  men  of  the 
highest  character,  but  do  you  think  it  is  fair.''  What  do  you  think  is  the 
province  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  when  a  man  is  charged  with  a  crime, 
but  to  see  that  he  has  a  fair  trial,  to  see  that  all  the  evidence  is  brought  out 
which  may  bear  upon  his  case:  and  do  you  think  it  was  fair  to  send  this  man 
away  when  they  found  that  his  testimony  would  not  serve  them,  and  that 
he  did  see  a  man  upon  the  train,  that  he  lookei  at  him,  that  this  man,  who 
Mr.  Lockamy  thought  was  sitting  with  his  head  down  in  some  suspicious 
attitude  when  Mr.  DeVane  got  upon  the  traiu.  talked  to  him  all  the  way, 
talked  to  him  freely  almut  the  country,  about  the  people;  he  looked  at  the 
man  he  examined  his  face,  he  saw  him,  and  he  says  that  he  could  not  iden- 
tify,him  as  the  same  ma-i  as  the  prisoner.  (ientU-men,  it  does  not  make 
such  a  tremendous  difiFereice  in  the  appearance  of  a  man  to  cut  off  his  whis- 
kers. VVe  have  seen  each  other  with  different  cuts  of  beard,  yet  we  have 
never  failed  to  recognize  each  other.  Suppose  I  should  cut  off  my  whiskers, 
don't  you  think  you  would  know  me?  Suppose  I  should  wear  them  long 
after  having  worn  a  smooth  face,  don't  \'ou  think  ^-ou  would  know  me,  if 
j'on  should  see  me  again  ?  It  does  not  make  such  a  change  in  the  appear- 
ance of  a  man  as  yon  would  be  led  to  believe  Now,  it  is  left  to  the  fertile 
imagination  of  a  colored  girl,  Lizzie  McCoy,  who  says  she  knew  him,  and  it 
was  he  and  no  one  else.  (lentlemen,  as  I  said,  this  is  a  matter  which  was 
talked  about;  5'ou  see  that  detectives  have  been  at  work  in  this  case,  you  see 
that  we  have  positively  laid  aside  and  crushed  with  damning  force  the  testi- 
mony of  two  of  the  most  important  witnesses,  Tom  Phillips  and  Edgar 
Gillespie;  now,  when  all  the  rest  of  these  witnesses  are  brought  up  and 
utterly  fail  to  testify  to  this  one  thing,  in  the  face  of  all  these  rumors,  in  the 
face  of  all  these  efforts  that  have  been  made  to  bring  disgrace  and  death  upon 
this  man,  are  you  going  to  pin  your  faith  upon  the  unsupported  testimony 
of  a  single  woman  ? 

Let  us  go  on  and  hear  from  Capt.  McNair,  who,  I  suppose,  has  as  good 
a  character  as  any  of  us,  and  who  swears  f)ositively  that  the  prisoner  went 
onto  Alma  that  morning,  instead  of  stopping  at  Maxton.  Of  course  the 
train  stopjied  awhile  at  >Laxton,  and  he  might  have  got  off;  the  gentlemen 
might  be  correct,  who  say  the}'  saw  him  at  the  liepot  at  Maxton,  but  he  went 
on  to  Alma.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  of 
the  gentleman  who  preceded  me,  when  he  says,  "oh.  but  Alma  was  onU' 
two  miles  from  there,  he  was  only  two  and  a-quarter  miles  from  there,  and 
he  had  an  hour  and  t^^irtvfive  minuutes,  that  is  from  7  o'clock  to  8:35  when 
the  train  passed  there."  But  do  you  remember  the  testimonv  of  Mr.  H.  K. 
Cole,  who  says  that  the  man  who  came  there  and  gave  his  name  as  Mc- 
Dougald^and  that  is  no  proof  that  this  man  was  McDougald, — that  this 
man  came  there  at  7  o'clock.  Now,  where  is  your  hour  and  thirty-five 
minutes  that  he  had  to  walk  two  and  a-quarter  miles  from  Alma  to  Max*^^on  ? 
Is  there  au}-  certainty  about  this  thing?  Is  it  not  all  confusion,  perplexity 
and  doubt  ?  Is  it  the  counsel  who.  as  you  have  been  warned,  is  attempting 
to  confuse  the  jurj',  oris  it  the  deliberate  testimony  of  the  witnesses  who 
have  been  here  in  your  presence?  He  went  to  Alma,  he  was  at  Alma  after 
7  o'clock  in  the  morning;  the  man  that  INIr.  Cole  saw,  and  who  tried  to  pass 
himselfoff  as  McDougald,  was  there  two  and  a-quarter  miles  awav  at  7  o'clock 
in  the  morning.  Reconcile  it,  gentlemen,  if  you  can,  but  remember  that  you 
must  be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  every  material  fact  that  is  alleged  b\-  the 
prosecution  against  the  life  of  this  man.  How  could  he  be  at  Alma  at  7  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  at  the  water-tank  beyond  Maxton  at  7  o'clock  in  the 
morning.     Horace  Jones  corroborates  Capt.  McNair;  a  man  of  good  character 


44  The  Trial  of  Daniel  McDougald 

that  he  is  might  possibh'  have  been  mistaken,  3'ou  say,  but  Horace  Jones 
corroborates  him.  He  tells  that  he  saw  him,  and  two  men  cannot  be  mis- 
taken in  this  matter.  McCormick  and  Cottingham  say  he  stopped  at  Max- 
ton;  he  may  have  stopped,  the  train  stopped  there  for  fifteen  minutes  or 
more  ;  he  may  have  said  something  to  Mr.  McCormick,  which,  in  the  light  of 
the  immense  volume  of  rumors  and  talk  which  has  comes  on  now,  appears 
to  have  been  that  he  was  going  to  take  the  Fayetteville  train;  McCormick 
may  have  been  mistaken  with  regard  to  the  train  he  said  he  was  going  to 
take,  because  Mr.  McCormick  saw  more  bundles  upon  his  arm  than  any  man 
can  generall}'  carr}-,  and  than  any  other  witness  in  the  whole  of  this  case 
ever  saw  this  man  have. 

As  I  said  before,  circumstancial  evidence  is  such  that  you  must  try  each 
separate  and  independent  fact  alleged  with  the  same  solemnity  as  the  main 
issue  of  the  case;  if  one  of  these  facts,  one  of  these  material  facts,  that  is  re- 
lied upon  by  the  State,  has  fallen  to  the  ground,  then  you  cannot  convict 
this  man. 

We  pass  on,  gentlemen.  Who  saw  him  at  Red  Springs  ?  Why,  nobody 
but  Tom  Phillips,  who  was  quietly  at  work  in  a  railroad  shop  at  Favetteville  at 
the  time  the  train  passed  Red  Springs.  You  remember  th .  testimony  of  Mr. 
Hector  McLean,  that  there  were  eight  telegraph  poles,  5oor  70  yards  between 
each  one,  making  at  the  lowest  calculation  480  3-ards;  and  then  there  is  no 
evidence  that  he  was  on  the  train;  they  have  utterly  failed  to  show  3'ou  that 
this  man  was  on  the  train.  You  want  proof,  gentlemen;  you  are  dealing  in 
such  a  matter  now  that  you  require  proof;  you  do  not  want  conjectures,  you 
do  not  want  rumor,  you  do  not  want  suspicion,  j-ou  want  the  truth.  The 
very  name  of  the  response  you  make  to  this  issue,  "verdict,"  means  that  3'ou 
shall  speak  the  truth,  that  you  shall  ascertain  the  truth  and  speak  it,  and 
you  cannot  declare  the  verdict  upon  an}-  mere  conjecture.  Nobod\-  saw  Mc- 
Dougald at  Red  Springs.  Then  we  come  to  the  tact,  if  ^-ou  believe  it,  as  tes- 
tified to  by  Charlotte  Dumas,  that  she  saw  a  strange  man;  she  said  it  was  on 
Monday  afternoon,  after  the  freight  train  passed;  she  lived  in  the  section- 
house;  the  section-house  was  a  hundred  yards  from  the  depot,  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Phail  testified  that  that  train  was  not  a  hundred  yards  long;  it  would  not  have 
been  necessary  for  anyone  to  testify  to  the  fact  that  the  train  was  not  a  hun- 
dred yards  long,  and  so  there  is  a  suspicion  attached  even  to  the  testimony 
of  Charlotte  Dumas.  When  you  break  down  one  witness  in  a  case  like  this, 
gentlemen,  when  you  have  reason  to  believe  that  there  has  been  tampering 
with  one  witness,  why,  whom  can  you  believe.^  You  have  to  scan  with  the 
greatest  care,  you  have  to  examine  with  the  utmo.st  minuteness  the  testi- 
mon\'  which  is  offered  by  all  the  others;  and  so,  according  to  Charlotte 
Dumas,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  if  that  man  could  have  gotten  ofi'the  train 
before  it  passed  her  house.  But  it  did  pass,  she  says;  there  was  a  good-look- 
ing white  man  there,  but  she  does  not  identify  him  as  this  prisoner.  Mr. 
McPhail  had  a  castial  glance  through  a  closed  window,  just  as  he  was  in  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Murchison,  he  looked  around  and  got  glimpse  of  a  man  with 
a  duster  passing  some  30  or  40  yards  away;  he  says  it  was  his  impression 
that  it  was  a  white  man,  but  does  not  even  know  that. 

Now,  gentlemen,  how  about  the  charge  that  this  man  was  on  the  train? 
Your  minds  must  be  brought  to  that  conclusion  that  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  yet  existing;  you  must  be  clearly -and  fully  convinced  that  he 
was  on  that  train,  or  else  the  case  of  the  prosecution  falls  to  the  ground. 
The  onl}'  witness  that  proves  that  he  got  on  that  train,  that  he  saw  him  on 
that  train,  has  been  absolutely  crushed  to  the  earth.  Then  we  have  another 
man  upon  the  public  road  leading  from  Shandon,  just  at  dinner  time,  when 
people  would  be  going  and  returning  from  dinner,  plenty  of  people  right  on 
that  road;  this  man,  not  the  prisoner,  but  this  man,  whoever  he  was,  left 
Shandon  after  one  o'clock,  and  JefF  Cobb  saw  a  man  with  a  long  duster  a 
little  after  one  o'clock;  he  lived  a  mile  away  and  saw  that  man  meeting  Fan- 
nie Mears  and  Henrj^  Smith.  I  want  to  know,  gentlemen,  considering  the 
character  of  that  road  and  of  the  country  through  which  he  passed,  where 
he  had  the  opportunity — if  it  was  the  same  white  man  where  had  he  the 
opportunity  to  make  that  sudden  transformation  of  himself?     Henry  Smith 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  45 

met  a  curious  looking  man  with  a  long  duster,  all  blacked  up;  it  looked  to 
him  like  you  could  see  white  places  on  his  hands  and  white  spots  on  the 
back  of  his  neck;  "did  not  sav  anything,  only  just  bowed  his  head;  he  had 
a  valise  and  oil  cloth  and  a  stick  through  it  on  his  left  shoulder  and  held  it 
with  his  right  hand;  did  not  notice  his  whiskers;  had  a  moustache;  did  not 
notice  his  hair."  You  are  to  believe  that  each  one  of  these  witnesses  saw  a 
man  with  a  great  black  wig  covering  his  head  and  great  side  whiskers,  and 
you  will  hnd  that  these  witnesses  testify  to  a  man  with  whiskers  all  over 
his  face,  covering  his  whole  face;  one  of  the  witnesses,  I  think  it  was  John 
C.  Conol}',  testified  that  he  had  a  long  beard,  as  long  as  Major  Shaw's  here, 
and  he  has  about  the  longest  beard  in  the  court  room.  Upon  examination 
before  the  magistrate,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  Henry  did  not 
say  a  word  about  the  white  spots  on  the  neck  and  hands;  that  was  a  very 
important  fact,  to  be  able  to  tell  whether  this  man  was  a  black  man  or  a 
blacked  man;  that  this  is  one  of  the  ver^-  strongest  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  yet  when  the  matter  was  fresh  in  his  mind  he  sa3's,  "  I  saw  a  man 
on  the  2tst  of  April,  did  not  look  like  anybody  that  I  ever  saw,  had  on  a 
long  duster,  wide-brimmed  hat,  a  long  moustache,  a  little  beard  under  his 
chin;  he  was  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  road  from  me;  I  saw  him  in  Mr.  JefF 
Cobb's  lane  about  2  o'clock,  a  slim  man,  tall  and  slender,  had  a  valise  and 
a  stick  run  through  it  on  his  shoulder."  These  things  gather  volume  as 
they  grow,  and  suggestions  have  been  made;  far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that 
any  suggestions  have  been  made  by  an3'  of  the  honorable  gentlemen  who 
represent  the  prosecution  in  this  cause;  I  do  not  do  that,  but  I  say  that 
detective  work  i.s  displayed  throughout  all  this  case  and  that  it  shows  that 
witnesses  have  been  tampered  with,  that  memories  have  been  refreshed,  and 
that  men  and  women  have  been  made  to  swear  here  that  which  they  did  not 
swear  when  the  matter  was  fresh  in  their  minds  and  when  they  were  exam- 
ined before  the  magistrate.  ^ 

Then  comes  Mrs.  Humphrey,  who  saj-s  that  he  was  certainly  black,  that 
his  face  glistened ;  she  thinks  now  that  it  was  an  unnatural  appearance. 
She  says  before  the  magistrate,  "I  saw  a  man  pass  the  road,  was  a  black 
man,  whom  I  took  to  be  a  negro,  was  tall  and  slender  and  had  on  a  duster, 
wore  glasses,  had  a  package  on  his  shoulder,  and  an  oil  cloth  over  it ;  about 
2  o'clock  when  he  passed  my  house  one  and  One-quarter  miles  from  Shan- 
don."  Here  it  was  that  we  saw  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes,  who  said  that  her  recol- 
lection was  much  brighter  now  than  at  the  time,  so  tlmt  the  recollection  of 
these  witnesses  is  brightening  as  the  time  pas.ses  away.  I  do  not  impute 
anything  to  Mrs.  Humphrey — I  believe  that  she  is  trying  to  tell  the  truth 
now,  but  I  say  that  you  may  reasonably  infer  that  the  rumors  and  con- 
jectures talked  in  the  neighborhood  have  raised  up  phantasies  and  shadows 
which  they  never  saw,  and  which  appear  to  them  now  as  natural  objects  of 
the  mind.  It  may  be  that  this  was  the  murderer,  but  fixing  it  upon  this 
defendent  here  is  the  child  of  the  imagination  ;  it  comes  from  the  thousand- 
tongued  rumors,  which  pa.ssed  through  that  countrv,  and  have  been  ever 
since  this  horrib'.e  murder  occured.  Now,  Mr.  Neill  Smith  is  the  first  one  of 
the  witnesses  who  in  the  remotest  degree  compares  him  to  McDougald; 
every  one  of  the  rest  of  those  witnesses  who  saw  that  blacked  man  on  the 
road  characterizes  Jiiin  as  tall  and  slender;  Mr.  Neill  Smith  is  the  only  one 
who  thinks  he  was  about  the  size  of  the  prisoner.  Are  you  going  to  disre- 
gard the  testimony  of  all  the  rest  of  the  vState's  witnesses,  which  prove  to 
you  that  it  was  not  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar,  because  one  of  them  has  l>rought 
his  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  about  the  same  size?  It  was  J.  C. 
Conole3^  coloted,  who  said,  as  well  as  Mrs.  Humprey,  that  his  face  glistened; 
he  knew  he  was  a  painted  man,  because  his  face  glistened.  Now,  let  us  con- 
sider that  a  moment:  when  a  man  puts  lampblack  over  his  face,  his  face  does 
not  glisten,  it  blackens  a  man  a  coal  black  without  any  glistening  about  it; 
there  is  no  shine  in  lampblack,  it  has  got  to  be  prepared  for  the  purpose,  and 
it  was  a  dull,  coal  black  if  that  man  was  blacked  with  lampblack,  and  his 
face  could  not  have  glistened.  It  gli.stened  so  that  it  was  unnatural,  she 
said;  well,  now,  without  the  least  disrespect  to  the  witnesses  who  immedi- 
ately followed  her  upon  the  stand,  you  saw  an  example  of  the  pure  African 


46  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

type  where  the  faces  were  black  and  they  glistened,  not  with  lampblack, 
but  with  the  natural  color  which  the  Almighty  had  put  upon  their  faces. 

Now,  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes.  I  cannot  refer  to  that  testimony  with  the 
accuracy  which  I  would  like  to,  but  3'ou  will  remember  it  better  than  I.  My 
impression  of  her  testimony'  was  that  she  saw  this  man  a  short  distance 
from  where  the  murder  was  committed,  and  she  never  said  anything  about 
his  being  tall  and  slender.  Now,  in  her  testimony'  uefore  the  magistrate 
Miss  Sallie  sa3'S  :  "I  saw  a  man  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  trom  Sim  Cono- 
le\-'s  house  on  the  public  road,  about  thirty  yards  from  me,  looked  like  a 
negro;  had  on  a  duster,  broad-brimmed  hat,  a  valise  strapped  on  his  back 
over  his  shoulder,  hung  down  to  one  side.  Could  not  tell  if  he  had  any 
beard;  was  tall  and  slender  and  looked  as  tall  as  Sim  Conoley,  and  had  on 
dark  colored  pants."  Remember  they  are  going  to  try  to  fix  him  with  a 
pepper-and-salt  pair  of  pants  on  that  occasion,  because  that  was  the  color  of 
the  pants  which  were  found  at  the  bridge.  Now  this  young  lady  has  im- 
proved in  her  testimony  much  since  she  delivered  it  before  the  Justice  of  the 
Peace.  To  pass  on.  Next  he  appears  to  Ed.  Gillespie,  when  it  was  clever 
daylight.  Shall  I  trouble  you,  gentlemen,  with  Ed  Gillespie's  testimony 
any  further?  Is  it  necessary  for  me  to  go  on  with  Ed.  Gillespie's?  Is  not 
he  standing  off  with  Mr.  Phillips?  The  gentlemen  for  the  prosecution  did 
not  rely  upon  him;  he  did  not  mention  Mr.  Piiillip^;  he  did  not  want  to 
mention  Gillespie,  but  he  could  not  help  it.  I  will  piss  him  over;  I  will  not 
trouble  you  any  further  with  Edgar  Gillespie,  except  to  say  that  the  wit- 
ness which  we  introduced  was  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  had  told 
others,  not  what  had  absolutely  corroborated  him,  because  he  told  him  the 
same  story,  but  we  introduced  him  because  he  said  that  Edgar  Gillespie  told 
him  that  his  wife  waked  him  up,  and  Edgar  Gillespie  told  you  that  his  wife 
was  not  there;  tha^  when  he  stayed  at  that  house  his  wife  was  not  there 
and  when  she  stayed  that  he  was  gone.  With  the  number  of  witnesses  who 
have  proven  to  you  the  character  and  reputation  which  he  bore,  I  will  not 
trouble  you  to  name  them. 

Then  he  goes  on  towards  Maxton  in  broad  daylight,  on  four  miles  of  the 
public  road  from  Campbell's  Bridge,  and  remember  people  are  passing 
about  in  all  that  country,  and  they  don't  bring  a  witness  to  see  him  all  the 
way  from  Campbell's  Bridge  to  Maxton;  though  he  washed  off  the  disguise 
that  they  say  he  had  on,  no  one  saw  him.  The  fact,  itself,  contradicts 
any  statement  of  that  kind.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  shall  have  to  refer  a 
little  to  the  clothes  at  Campbell's  Bridge:  George  Blue  testified  that  hav- 
ing found  the  clothes  at  Campbell's  Bridge  early  in  the  morning — he  lives 
two  and  a-quarter  miles  from  Campbell's  Bridge,  and  was  there  the  next 
morning  and  found  a  pair  of  pants,  a  package  of  lampblack  wrapped  up  in  a 
Wihfiingtoti  Messenger,  about  eight  or  nine  feet  from  the  bridge,  and  an  old 
hat,  a  pocket-handkerchief,  a  piece  of  looking-glass  and  an  undershirt:  re- 
member that,  an  old  bbick  wide-brimmed  hat  with  holes  in  the  brim,  a  new 
undershirt  that  was  black  around  the  collar  and  sleeves.  He  had  them  in' 
the  oil-house  hung  up,  and  now  he  says  that  he  saw  the  prisoner  on  Satur- 
day morning  after  he  came  to  the  oil-house.  "I  was  up  at  the  store  and 
saw  him  come  from  Laurinburg;  I  went  to  the  engine;  the  prisoner  came 
and  hitched  his  horse  at  the  store  and  came  on  behind  me  and  asked  me  if  I 
was  the  fireman,  and  said  he  heard  I  had  some  clothes  that  he  would  like  to 
see.  I  went  with  him  to  the  oil -house  and  could  not  find  them,  except  the 
hat;  there  were  houses  there;  I  do  not  know  who  had  been  there;  I  went  to 
the  store  to  see  if  the^^  were  there;  I  looked  in  the  shop  and  in  the  wagon; 
aftervi-ards  we  found  them  under  the  oil-house.  The  prisoner  laid  them  out 
and  looked  at  them.  He  asked  us  what  we  would  do,  and  we  told  him  if  we 
were  in  his  place  we  would  take  them  and  make  what  we  could  out  of  them; 
and  he  said  his  uncle  was  killed  that  night  and  he  supposed  that  the  man 
who  killed  him  was  sitting  in  .the  path  that  evening  waiting  for  him,  and 
he  happened  not  to  come  that  way.  Said  he  shot  him  in  the  side  of  the  head, 
and  it  seemed  like  when  he  fell,  he  made  one  step  and  shot  him  again." 
The  man  talk  that  way  about  it  who  was  the  guilty  murderer,  with  the  stain 
of  his  victim  upon  his  conscience  !     But  I  read  that  for  the  purpose  of  show 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  47 

\ng  you,  gentlemen,  that  he  did  not  have  any  chance  to  go  there  and  get 
those  clothes  and  hide  them.  George  saw  him  coming  from  Laurinburg; 
George  saw  him  ride  by  the  oil-house  up  to  the  store  and  hitch  his  horse, 
and  as  George  started  back  to  the  oil -house  he  followed  him.  When  did  he 
have  an  opportunity  to  go  there  and  hide  those  clothes  ?  : 

There  is  another  little  circumstance  about  this  case: — I  will  return  to 
this  matter  of  the  clothes  a  little  further  on,  because  I  want  to  follow  the 
argument  of  my  friend  as  near  as  I  can.  I  will  suggest  to  you  about  this 
swamp,  that  there  were  streams  in  his  way  in  which  he  could  wash  and  hide 
those  clothes  before  the  night  had  passed  away.  There  were  other  people 
at  Campbell's  Bridge,  so  that  this  bundle  might  have  no  connection  with 
this  matter.  There  were  raft  hands  there,  and  the  gentleman  does  us  great 
injustice  when  he  says  that  the  testimony  of  the  witness  that  some  one  came 
there  in  the  night  and  bought  crackers  and  that  that  was  Mr.  Cole,  was  in- 
tended to  cast  suspicion  in  3"our  minds  against  Mr.  Cole.  There  never  was 
the  slightest  idea  of  such  a  thing,  gentlemen;  it  is  great  injustice  to  those  of 
us  who  represent  the  prisoner  to  say  that  any  such  idea  as  that  was  in  our 
minds.  When  this  testimony  was  introduced  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  that  place  was  frequented  by  men  coming  and  going;  till  ill 
the  night  they  were  coming  and  going,  and  that  it  might  have  been  left 
there  by  some  one  else.  Mr.  Cole  comes  up  at  the  subpoena  of  the  State  and 
testifies 'that  he  did  go  there;  what  does  he  say  about  the  other  man  that 
was  with  him  .•"  There  is  a  reasonable  h3'pothesis;  there  were  two  men  there 
that  night,  why  could  not  one  of  them  have  left  that  bundle  there  .''  Ah,  but 
the  clothes  are  too  fine  for  ordinary  people  to  wear.  Now,  if  any  of  30U 
have  bought  undershirts  in  this  market  where  they  sell  cheap,  or  anywhere 
in  this  country-  in  the  last  year  or  two,  you  ma}-  know  that  pretty  nearly 
anybody  can  afford  to  wear  a  tolerabh-  respectable  undershirt — thej*  cost 
very  little.  It  was  not  a  bran  new,  gray  pepper-and-salt  pair  of  pants  that 
a  man  would  wear  to  a  wedding,  it  was  an  old  pair  according  to  their  further 
accounts,  and  I  can  tell  3'ou,  gentlemen,  that  many  a  man  goes  down  the 
river  on  a  raft  that  is  able  to  wear  as  good  a  pair  of  pants  as  you  or  I,  and 
who  carries  them  along  with  him  too,  to  put  on  when  he  gets  through  his 
business  and  comes  to  the  place  where  he  wants  to  appear  to  better  advan- 
tage. Talk  about  the  clothes  not  being  such  as  a  laboring  man  would  wear 
won't  do.  Men  who  are  in  that  line  of  business  that  Mr.  Cole  was — was  he 
not  able  to  wear  clotlies  as  good  as  anything  that  was  described  in  that 
bundle,  and  had  not  Tie  been  on  that  raft  ?  Of  course  they  could  have  worn 
them.  (  f 

The  most  strained  construction  I  have  heard  in  a  court  of  justice  is  to- 
attempt  to  fix  upon  the  prisoner,  in  the  face  of  the  testimony  of  George  Blue* 
that  he  went  there  and  tried  to  hide  those  clothes  and  then  went  and  tried 
to  find  theui.  Gentlemen,  when  did  he  come  for  these  clothes?  He  came 
for  them  on  Saturday,  and  that  explains  another  thing.  It  is  held  up  to 
you  as  a  dark  and  damning  evidence  of  his  guilt,  because  Mr.  James  Mc- 
Bryde  on  Friday  was  going  on  down  to  Lumberton,  and  found  this  d'-fend- 
ani  on  the  train  going  to  Wilmington.  He  had  a  long  conversation  with 
him,  and  m  the  course  of  that  conversation  he  told  him — and  it  was  the 
first  time  he  had  ever  heard  it — that  those  clothes  were  at  Campbell's 
Bridge  Why,  he  was  anxious  to  ascertain  who  was  the  perpetrator  of  this 
diabolical  murder;  he  did  not  wait  to  attend  to  his  business  in  Wilmington., 
but  he  immediately  left  the  tratn  as  soon  as  he  got  there,  came  right  back 
and  went  to  Campbell's  Bridge  and  got  those  clothes.  Does  that  look  like 
a  man  who  was  attempting  to  conceal  anything  ?  It  is  a  perfect  explanatioa 
of  his  going  to  Wilmington  and  returning  upon  that  train.  It  is  jour  duty 
to  give  every  reasonable  interpretation  to  the  acts  of  a  man  consistent  with 
his  innocence. 

W^ell,  they  say  that  he  lost  the  clothes,  that  he  lost  them  on  purpose; 
and  now,  I  want  to  ask  you  gentlemen,  as  reasonable  men,  if  he  was  going 
to  lose  those  clothes,  if  he  was  going  to  put  them  away  out  of  evidence,  whyi 
would  he  have  selected  one  of  the  most  intelligent  men  in  the  county  of 
Robeson,  Mr.  Mac  MacKinnon,  and  gone  to  exhibit  them  to  him .-'     Don't 


48  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  Me  Doug  aid 

you  know  that  Mr.  MacKinnon,  after  having  examined  those  clothes,  would 
be  as  good  a  witness  as  to  what  they  were  as  the  clothes  themselves?  Here 
is  a  man  now  that  is  going  to  make  way  with  the  evidence  of  his  guilt, 
and  the  first  thing  he  does  is,  that  when  he  sees  Mr.  MacKinnon  as  he 
passes  his  place,  he  tells  him  that  the  clothes  are  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge 
and  he  is  going  to  Campbell's  Bridge  to  get  them,  and  he  brings  them  back 
and  stops  and  spreads  them  out  and  exhibits  them  to  Mr.  MacKinnon.  Is 
not  that  an  answer  .-*  If  I  should  stop  right  there, — is  not  that  an  answer  to 
any  imputation,  any  charge  which  is  made  that  he  has  done  away  with  those 
clothes  to  prevent  their  being  used  as  evidence  against  him? 

Ah,  but  Mr.  Phillips,  who  stopped  him  at  the  blacksmith  shop,  wanted 
to  see  the  pants  and  he  did  not  show  them;  he  did  not  know  Mr.  Phillips 
and  Mr.  Phillips  did  not  know  him,  and  he  had  not  time  to  stop  and  exhibit 
them  to  every  one.  Mr.  Hodgin  says  he  don't  know  whether  he  heard  him 
or  not  when  he  asked  him  about  the  clothes.  And  so  these  facts,  which  are 
go  strange  and  so  convincing  and  so  suspicious,  melt  away  into  thin  air 
when  held  up  to  your  examination.  He  went  out  with  them  to  his  uncle 
John's,  and  there  we  have  the  testimony  of  Neill  Conoley  as  to  what  occurred 
there.  Neill  Conoley  was  not  there  when  he  arrived;  he  came  up  afterwards; 
he  found  the  road  cart  sitting  out  in  front  of  the  door  in  as  safe  a  place  and 
as  public  a  place  as  could  be;  he  found  the  clothes  carefully  put  away  in  the 
box  of  the  road  cart;  his  father  and  the  prisoner  had  gone  to  see  a  magistrate 
and  they  did  not  return  until  night.  The  clothes  were  mentioned;  you  are  asked 
to  believe  that  the  prisoner  never  said  anything  to  John  Conoley  about  the 
clothes;  why  should  you  believe  that?  Is  there  any  testimony  that  he  did 
not  tell  John  Conoley  that  he  brought  those  clothes  there  and  that  they  were 
right  there  at  his  house.  They  say  that  we  ought  to  have  put  John  Conoley 
on  the  stand;  in  replying  to  their  suggestion  as  to  what  witnesses  the  de- 
fendant should  ofifer,  or  his  counsel  should  advise  him  to  offer,  they  have 
made  strictures  upon  the  failure  of  the  prisoner  to  put  upon  the  stand  several 
of  the  witnesses;  we  have  endeavored  to  take  up  no  more  of  your  time  than 
was  necessary  to  develop  fully  the  case  which  we  desired  to  make;  we  have 
taken  one  witness  from  each  prominent  point,  and  the  other  witnesses  had, 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  State's  counsel  and  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution, 
been  here  in  the  Court  House,  and  they  could  have  been  called  if  they  wan- 
ted them.  Indeed,  there  were  State's  witnesses  they  say  we  ought  to  have 
put  on;  Lizzie  Conoley  and  Ed.  Conoley  were  summoned  here  for  the  State; 
the  State  examined  them  and  found  they  would  be  of  no  service  to  it,  and 
discharged  them  here  in  open  court.  We  held  them  to  see  if  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  put  them  on;  but  we  took  one  witness  of  the  facts  that  they  would 
have  testified  to,  and  left  them  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  State,  if  they  should 
have  chosen  to  put  them  on.  Now,  why  did  not  they  put  them  on  ?  The 
burden  of  proof  is  on  the  State  in  this  case.  I  was  surprised  at  a  remark 
made  by  my  friend,  that  he  hoped  that  this  prisoner  could  lift  the  burden 
upon  him.  Gentlemen,  there  is  no  burden  upon  him  until  the  State  puts  it 
on  him.  They  forget  that  in  our  land  of  law  and  liberty  every  man  is  pre- 
sumed to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  to  be  guilty.  It  is  a  protection  for 
us  all  that  no  man  can  be  convicted  of  crime,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  any 
crime,  until  twelve  men  sitting  as  you  are  should  so  pronounce  him.  It  is 
a  little  too  early  to  ask  a  man  to  lift  the  burden  off  of  him  before  the  State 
of  North  Carolina  can  put  it  on  him.  They  talk  about  our  not  introducing 
more  witnesses,  witnesses  summoned  by  the  State,  witnesses  in  the  presence 
of  the  court,  witnesses  sitting  all  around  them,  and  they  try  to  cast  an  impu- 
tation upon  us  for  not  having  put  on  more  witnesses.  What  is  the  use  of 
taking  up  the  time  of  the  court,  after  introducing  one  witness  upon  a  subject 
tike  that,  and  leaving  the  rest,  who  are  State's  witnesses,  to  be  called  if  ikey 
choose  to  do  so  ? 

He  met  Mr.  Purcell  and  Mr.  Johnson,  and  he  openly  told  them  that  he 
wanted  to  get  out  of  the  country;  he  had  been  to  John  Conoley's,  and  he  had 
found  out  that  it  was  dangerous  to  remain  in  that  country;  he  had  gone  to 
bed  that  night,  shut  up  in  that  house,  and  in  the  morning,  when  he  went  to 
get  the  clothes,  or  before  he  got  up  in  the  morning,  the  clothes  were  gone.     It  is 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  49 

a  circumstance  now  that  is  offered  against  him;  the  tesdmon}-  of  the  wit- 
ness, Neill  Conoley,  who  has  not  been  impeached  and  cannot  be  impeached, 
who  is  evidently  a  young  man  without  a  great  deal  of  intelligence,  but  man 
enough  to  tell  his  story  and  tell  it  truthfully,  for  you  saw  it  in  his  face,  to 
make  no  perversion;  he  told  you  that  when  he  came  into  the  house  that 
night  the  clothes  were  in  the  cart,  and  that  McDougald,  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  was  in  bed ;  that  he  fastened  the  door  in  a  peculiar  way,  a  way  that  nobody 
knew  except  the  family;  on  account  of  this  mystefious  murder  of  the  uncle 
and  brother,  they  had  become  fearful,  and  the\-  fixed  the  latch  so  that  they 
screwed  a  screw  into  it,  and  fastened  it  in  a  way  that  no  one  knew;  that  he 
went  to  bed  with  his  head  right  at  the  bed  in  which  McDougald  sLpt,  and 
that  McDougald  did  not  go  out  of  that  house  that  night;  if  he  did,  he  don't 
know  it,  and  he  would  have  known  it  if  he  had  gone;  so  he  showed  you  that 
no  man  could  have  gone  out  of  that  house  without  waking  up  the  family. 
Go  out  of  the  window?  Wh)-,  the  testimony,  gentlemen,  is  that  the  window 
was  propped  up  from  the  outsiae,  and  that  if  they  had  taken  it  away  the 
shutter  would  have  fallen;  that  thete  was  no  chance  to  do  that  without 
making  a  noise,  and  that  it  was  exactly  in  the  same  condition  in  the  morn- 
ing as  at  night.  So  there  is  this  prisoner  at  the  bar  quietly  reposing  in  that 
house  during  the  whole  of  the  night,  and  the  clothes  gone  before  he  got  up 
in  the  morning.  Whe  e  is  the  theor3'  th  it  he  slipped  out  and  did  away  with 
those  clothes  ?  What  would  he  have  earned  tiietn  there  tor.'  W^hy  would 
he  have  carried  them  along  the  road  and  exhibited  them  to  the  most  respect- 
able citizens  of  the  county.'  What  would  he  have  carried  them  there  at  all 
for?  Could  not  they  have  been  lo.st  at  an  earlier  period,  if  he  had  intended 
to  do  away  with  them  ?  But  to  go  through  all  that  ratiocination  and  then 
pretend  the\-  were  lo.st  ! 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  notice  that  he  is  active  in  looking  up  this 
matter,  and  in  all  his  examination,  in  going  from  place  to  place,  getting  the 
clothes,  doing  what  he  could  to  discover  who  was  the  perpetrator  of  thi.s 
hortfble  crime,  that  he  never  flinched  until  those  clothes  were  lost;  then 
there  .seemed  to  strike  him  an  idea  that  it  was  dangerous  for  him  to  be  there 
any  longer.  He  knew  that  he  had  an  enemy;  it  is  in  evidence  before  30U 
that  he  had  an  enemy  in  that  country,  and  that  that  man  had  accused  him 
of  this  crime;  he  had  reason  to  believe  that  some  one  was  around  that  hou.se 
that  night;  it  is  in  evidence,  somewhere,  that  he  told  some  one  that  John 
Conole\^  had  been  cut  off  when  he  went  out  of  the  house  there  on  one  occca- 
sion,  that  the  Conoley  family  were  frightened,  that  one  had  been  killed,  and 
that  they  knew  not  who  was  the  perpetrator  of  the  deed,  and  that  they  were 
afraid.  ThcN' were  fastening  themselves  up  in  the  house  at  night,  andfearstruck 
him,  .so  he  left  the  countr}'.  You  have  abundant  evidence,  the  names  of  the 
witnesses  for  the  defence,  who  testify  that  thej-  heard  of  the  threats  in  Robe- 
son, threats  so  great,  gentlemen,  that  the  people  of  Laurinburg  were  about 
to  organize  to  protect  him;  it  was  openly  said  upon  the  streets  of  Lanriburg 
that  if  he  were  carried  to  prison  it  would  be  necessars'  for  the  men  of  Rich- 
mond to  go  with  him  and  protect  him",  You  have  heard  of  lynch  law,  and 
I  tell  yon,  gentlemen,  the  stoutest  hearts  will  quail  before  it.  What  is  it? 
It  is  taking  of  the  law  in  their  own  hands  bj'  men,  and  the  taking  of  a  man 
and  assuming  him  guilt\-  unto  death  by  men  who  have  not  tried  him, 
who  have  not  heard  the  evidence  against  him,  and  who,  if  they  had,  would 
have  no  right  to  put  him  to  death  or  to  punish  him.  Lynch  law  is  perpe- 
trated in  the  night  time  under  the  cover  of  disguise  b}-  crowds  of  men  who 
are  unknown.  The  history-  of  North  Carolina  for  the  last  few  years  war- 
rants me  in  saj-ing  to  3-ou  that  an}'  man  ma^-  dread  the  effect  of  lynch  law 
when  he  comes  under  suspicion.  And  so,  fearing  the  wreaking  of  private 
vengeance  upon  him,  fearing  the  uprising  of  the  people  against  him,  and 
the  summar}'  execution  ot  that  which  the\-  call  law  and  which  was  worse 
than  no  law  at  all,  his  courage  failed;  he  knew  the  character  of  the  person 
with  whom  he  was  at  variance  in  that  countr}';  he  deemed  it  best,  and  he 
told  Mr.  Purcell  that  he  must  get  out  of  that  county,  and  he  told  Mr.  Johnson, 
and  he  left.  Now,  they  rely  upon  his  flight  as  the  particular  evidence  of 
his  guilt.     I  want  to  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  the  fact,  that  while 


50  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

flight  aftords  some  presumption  of  guilt  upon  a  man  who  has  been  charged 
with  a  crime,  that  that  presumption  is  of  the  ver^'  slightest  character,  that 
it  is  always  liable  to  be  refuted,  and  that  it  cannot  be  relied  upon  as  con- 
clusive proof  of  guilt.  I  want  to  read  you  from  a  law  book  on  that  subject  a 
short  sentence  which  comes  down  along  with  the  wisdom  of  the  ages;  it  is 
under  the  head  of  "Presumptions." 

[Judge  MacRae  read  an  extract  showing  that  flight  is  not  always  a  proof 
of  guilt,  but  that  fear  may  spring  from  a  ver^-  different  motive  than  conscious 
guilt.] 

Could  it  have  been  written  better  to  suit  this  case  than  it  was?  Well, 
gentlemen,  to  go  along.  Wednesday  morning,  the  22nd.  I  want  to  examine 
with  a  little  critical  care  the  testimony  with  regard  to  his  being  seen  at  Max- 
ton  the  morning  after  the  murder  with  indications  of  black  on  his  face.  Mr. 
Herring  testifies,  and  he  was  a  willing  witness;  you  remember  how  he 
attempted  to  delineate  the  negro  character  and  speech;  it  is  Mr.  Herring, 
now,  who  sa\\s  he  knew  the  prisoner  about  a  5'ear,  had  seen  him  often ;  his 
family  lived  at  Laurinburg,  but  on  account  of  the  way  the  train  ran  he  was 
not  able  to  spend  Sunda\'  in  Laurinburg  as  he  formerly  did;  went  to  Lau- 
rinburg Tuesda\-  night,  coming  back  by  the  local  freight  Wednesday  morn- 
ing; got  to  Afaxton  about  7  A.  M.  "  When  the  pri.soner  got  on  I  looked  at 
him  a  little  while,  I  did  not  know  him,  he  alwaj^s  looked  nice  before;  then  I 
saw  it  was  Mr.  McDougald  from  Laurinburg;  I  thought  so  from  his  whole 
appearance.  After  they  started,  he  spoke  to  him  and  told  him  that  the  train 
had  been  taken  off  and  he  could  not  come  to  his  Sunday  School  as  he  had 
been  doing;  that  he  had  joined  his  class  in  Sunday  School.  Said  he  looked 
seedy,  had  something  like  a  drab-colored  duster  and  a  black  valise  and  an 
oil  cloth;  all  these  things  that  he  must  have  brought  back  with  him  if  he  had 
them  then,  they  have  been  disposed  of  by  that  witness;  when  he  sees  him 
there  and  sees  marks  upon  his  face,  could  see  blacking  upon  his  face  and  a 
small  streak  upon  his  neck,  grabbed  his  valise  and  said  "this  is  my  getting 
off  place,"  and  he  got  off;  and  Mr.  Jacob  Greenwall,  who  seemed  to  be  highly 
indignant  that  the  defendant  called  him  Mr,  Flaum  instead  of  Mr.  Green- 
wall,  says  he  found  black  all  under  his  eyes;  that  was  the  only  place  he  saw 
though,  he  did  not  see  any  black  on  his  neck,  as  much  as  he  looked  at  him, 
but  he  just  saw  black  under  his  eyes,  and  he  saw  him  again  the  same  day  at 
Laurinburg.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  the  testimony  of  the  one  side,  except 
Mr.  Crowson;  Mr.  Crowson  says  that  on  that  morning  he  came  into  his 
establishment  and  that  he  was  muddy  and  dusty  both.  Now,  I  w^nt  to 
know  how  a  shoe  could  be  muddy  and  dusty  at  the  same  time,  and  the  sin- 
gular part  of  it  all,  gentlemen,  was  that  in  that  country  or  down  there  near 
Maxton  there  was  no  red  mud.  He  had  red  mud  on  his  boots.  Now  where 
did  the  red  mud  come  from  ?  These  inconsistencies  are  matters  which  you 
are  to  scan  closely  to  enable  you  to  eliminate  the  truth.  If  you  believe  that 
there  is  any  red  mud  down  there  in  that  country,  why  you  can  consider  that 
testimony. 

On  the  other  hand  Mr.  Powers,  who  is  a  man  of  as  good  a  character  as 
any  man  put  upon  the  stand,  says  that  he  saw  him  after  the  train  had  come  in 
that  morning;  when  he  first  saw  him  he  was  leaning  back  against  the  house; 
he  went  up  and  spoke  to  him;  Mr.  Powers  was  standing  down  there  on  the 
track,  and  the  prisoner,  he  said,  squatted  down  .so  as  to  get  his  face  right 
near  the  face  of  the  witness;  that  he  looked  him  square  in  the  eyes,  that  he 
had  a  conversation  with  him  there  of  some  minutes,  and  he  swears  to  you 
positively  that  he  had  no  blacking  on  his  face.  Now,  would  not  he  know  it  ? 
Would  not  Capt.  Powers  know  it  if  he  had  no  blacking  on  his  face?  Is  not 
there  a  doubt,  to  put  it  in  the  very  lightest  way,  is  not  there  the  very  strong- 
est doubt  as  to  whether  there  was  any  black  on  his  face?  But  that  is  not 
all.  Mr.  Sellers  testified  on  that  subject;  Mr.  Sellers  saw  him  there;  and 
testified  that  there  was  no  black  on  his  face.  Mr.  McGirt  saw  him  there  and 
Mr.  McGirt  testifies  that  there  was  no  black  on  his  face.  So  there  it  is. 
Herring  and  Greenwall  and  Crowson  on  the  other  side  with  red  shoes,  and 
Powers  and  Sellers  and  McGirt  on  this  side.  Now,  gentlemen,  what  is  the 
truth  ?    The  State  has  got  to  show  you  what  the  truth  isj  it  leaves  this  mat- 


for  line  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  51 

ter  in  doubt  and  uncertainty;  it  can  bring  no  conviction  in  your  mind,  and 
you  cannot  say  that  you  have  been  satisfied  that  he  was  there  with  blackened 
face  on  the  morning  of  the  22nd. 

They  say  he  told  a  falsehood  as  to  his  whereabouts  on  the  night  of  the 
murder.  How  do  you  know  it?  How  do  you  know  he  told  any  falsehood 
about  it  on  the  night  of  the  murder?  Mr.  McNair  and  Horace  testified  that 
he  went  on  down  to  Alma;  there  is  no  witness  who  testified  that  they  saw 
him  return  from  Alma;  there  were  other  trains  going  to  Wilmington  on  the 
same  day,  and  the  only  testimony  is  that  of  the  conductor  of  the  train,  that 
he  did  not  see  him.  Don't  you  know  that  coming  up  in  the  night  time,  men 
curl  up  and  go  to  sleep  and  stick  out  their  tickets  to  the  conductor,  and  he 
don't  know  half  the  men  on  the  train  in  the  night  time?  How  often  have 
you  done  it  yourself  in  traveling;  wrapped  yourself  up  and  gone  to  sleep, 
and  when  the  conductor  put  his  hand  on  j'our  shoulder,  just  handed  up 
your  ticket  and  gone  to  sleep  again;  he  says  that  he  did  not  see  him  on  that 
train.  Well,  Capt.  Nehemiah,  who  was  the  engineer,  says  that  he  was 
not  on  the  engine.  Of  course  he  was  not  on  the  engine.  How  do  you  know 
that  he  did  not  go  to  Wilmineton  ?  Because  Capt.  Welsh  just  did  not  know 
that  he  was  on  the  train  ?  Is  the  conductor  required  to  take  our  names  down 
as  we  travel  on  his  train  ?  There  is  no  testimony  which  you  can  rely  on  to 
show  that  he  was  not  in  Wilmington  on  that  night  and  came  up  on  that 
train.  If  this,  gentlemen,  is  wrapped  in  doubt  and  uncertainty,  how  do  we 
know  the  truth  ?  And  it  must  be  proven  to  you  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
before  you  can  accept  it.  What  is  truth  ?  It  is  the  despairing  cry  which 
has  come  down  the  ages.  Men  look  for  truth  and  search  for  truth  and  strive 
for  truth.  What  is  truth  ?  Has  the  State  proven  that  he  did  not  come  up 
from  Wilmington  on  Tuesday  night  ?     The  burden  is  on  the  State  to  prove  it. 

He  gets  back  to  Laurinburg  on  Wednesdaj'  noon.  Mr.  Robbins  sees 
hini;  now  his  face  has  been  black  all  this  time,  and  they  want  to  hang  him 
because  he  had  a  black  face;  now  they  want  to  fasten  the  rope  around  him 
because  he  had  a  clean  face.  "  Consistency,  thou  art  a  jewel!  "  Let  us  have 
it  one  thing  or  the  other,  gentlemen.  Now,  Mr.  Robbins  notices  that  his 
face  was  a  little  red;  don't  let  that  circumstance  work  against  the  man, 
gentlemen,  or  some  of  us  would  be  found  in  danger.  Men  of  light  complex- 
ion, and  with  the  blood  which  we  bear  in  us,  many  of  us  are  not  alwa}'s  able  to 
control  the  blood  which  surges  up  into  our  faces.  Let  any  of  us  ride  from 
Wilmington,  on  a  train  all  night,  without  taking  a  sleeper,  and  you  will  find 
our  faces  rather  discolored  in  the  morning.  Well,  Mr.  Robbins  said  that  his 
face  was  a  little  red,  but  they  rely  upon  Mr.  Robbins  for  a  great  deal  more 
than  that,  gentlemen,  and  I  say  that  my  friend,  without  intending  it,  was 
unfair  in  one  of  his  statements,  going  on  to  discuss  Mr.  Robbins,  which 
brings  in  the  fact  that  this  young  man  was  the  leader  in  all  the  innocent 
amusements  in  that  section  of  country',  that  he  was  a  member  of  an  associa- 
tion which  gave  concerts  and  theatrical  exhibits,  and  that  he  was 
in  disguise  as  a  negro  occasionally,  and  that  he  used  that  disguise 
there,  and  that  he  had  an  opportunity  therefore,  to  disguise  him- 
self as  a  negro,  and  he  says  that  he  never  heard  of  his  being  disguised 
as  a  negro  or  of  his  attempting  to  disguise  himself  as  a  negro  until 
that  policy  was  obtained.  That  is  unfair,  it  is  unjust.  You  are  asked  to 
come  to  an  inference  about  a  matter  of  which  you  know  nothing;  the  fair 
'  inference  would  be.  that  he  was  a  young  man  in  society  at  Laurinburg,  that 
he  was  accustomed  to  act  with  the  young  ladies  down  there  in  these  amuse- 
ments of  theirs,  and  that  this  matter  had  been  going  on  for  years;  that  would 
be  the  just  inference  which  you  would  draw  from  it,  instead  of  going  and 
imagining  the  fact  that  he  never  personated  the  negro  until  the  insurance 
policy  was  taken  out  upon  the  life  of  Simeon  Conole\-  for  the  benefit  of  Mar- 
garet Elizabeth  Conoley.  Well,  in  these  concerts  it  was  necessary  for  them 
to  have  a  wig  and  whiskers.  He  borrowed  on  one  occasion  from  Mr.  Rob- 
bins side-whiskers,  not  whiskers  which  go  all  over  his  face,  gentlemen,  not 
•whiskers  that  hang  down  like  Major  Shaw's,  but  he  borrowed  side-whis- 
kers, black  side-whiskers,  and  a  wig,  a  red  wig.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Rob- 
bins said  that  he  told  him  that  Dr.  Everington  could  have  it  dyed  for  him 


52  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

there  is  no  SN'llable  of  evidence  that  Dr.  Everington  ever  had  it  d\'ed  for  him, 
and  the  wig  that  he  wore  on  the  occasion  of  the  concerts  there  was  the  wig, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  some  witnesses,  that  was  used  by  any  and  all 
of  them.  Now,  thai  is  the  wig  it  fixes  him  with,  a  red  wig  that  had  been 
combed  out  a  little  way  behind;  the  character  that  was  personated  by  Mr. 
Robbins,  I  believe,  was  that  of  an  Irishman,  and  that  was  the  wig  that  he 
lent  the  defendant.  Now,  some  of  the  witnesses  te.^tify  as  to  the  painted 
man  on  the  road  that  he  had  on  black  whiskers  all  over  his  face,  and  one 
said  he  had  chin-whiskers.  How  are  you  going  to  prove  them  so  as  to 
reconcile  them  to  be  the  same  thing  that  Mr.  Robbins  let  him  have?  But 
this  is  on  a  par  with  the  testimony  of  witnesses  as  to  his  disguise  in  acting 
as  a  negro,  when  you  see  how  they  labor  to  show  that  in  those  concerts, 
when  disguising  himself  to  personate  the  negro  character,  that  he  wore  a 
duster,  and  j-et  it  turned  out  that  he  did  not  wear  any  duster  at  all,  and, 
according  to  the  testimony-,  he  never  did  wear  a  duster  when  he  was  person- 
ating that  character.  He  had  a  coat  that  was  turned  wrong  side  outward, 
and  having  it  on  him  in  that  way,  it  had  canvas  lining  to  the  sleeves,  and 
that  was  the  coat  he  wore  at  Laurinburg,  and  he  had  something  of  the  kind 
at  Mason's  Cross,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  having  worn  a  duster,  and 
he  wore  no  whiskers  at  Mason's  Cross  at  all. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  a-ou  are  in  an}'  doubt  as  to  the  cause  of  his  flight;  if 
I  have  satisfied  30U,  or  raised  in  vour  minds  a  reasonable  apprehension,  that 
judging  human  nature  as  you  must  judge  it  in  order  to  arrive  at  your  con- 
clusion, that  he  maj'  have  been  influenced  by  his  fear  of  Millard  Moore,  by 
his  timidity  and  the  fear  of  the  populace,  by  his  having  heard  threats  of 
l5'nching,  and  that  he  determined  to  get  out  of  the  country  until  he  could 
establish  his  innocence,  why  it  falls  to  the  ground  unless  that  flight  fixes 
guilt  upon  him;  it  falls  to  the  ground  because  I  can  show  you  a  case  in  the 
books,  of  recent  occurence,  where  leaving  out  the  one  element  of  flight,  the 
evidences  of  guilt  were  much  stronger  than  in  this  case,  and  yet  the  court 
would  not  allow  the  instruction  to  be  given  to  the  jury  otherwise  than  as 
the  evidence  showed. 

[Judge  MacRae  read  the  case  of  a  man  who  was  charged  with  murder  in 
Richmond  county,  where  there  was  only  a  suspicion  against  him,  and  the 
jury  acquitted.] 

I  forget  whether  I  have  referred  to  the  matter  of  the  tracks.  The  whole 
evidence  that  is  before  5'ou  is  that  he  said  himself  that  the  track  was  about 
the  size  of  his.  Was  he  a  madman,  gentlemen,  was  he  absolutely  crazy? 
Did  that  look  like  an  innocent  or  a  guilty  man  ?  "Why  that  track  looks 
about  the  size  of  mine,"  and  they  sav  that  it  was  something  like  the  size  of 
his;  and  the\-  say  he  tried  to  rub  it  out,  when  there  were  a  hundred  of  them 
there;  there  was  the  track  and  the  evidence  was  that  he  stepped  over  it,  and 
a  man  said,  "you  are  rubbing  on  that  track,  don't  put  it  out."  That  is  a 
great  circumstance  now;  if  there  had  been  onl}-  one  track  there,  and  he  had 
carelessly  stepped  vipon  that  again,  why  there  might  be  .something  in  it, 
but  there  were  a  hundred  of  the  same  tracks  all  around  there;  it  was  not  the 
track  at  the  head  of  the  body;  there  were  tracks  at  the  head  of  the  body 
which  were  preserved  intact;  it  was  another  track  that  they  said  that  he  had 
carelessly  or,  they  would  have  you  to  believe,  intentionally  attempted  to 
rub  out  with  his  foot.  So  there  was  one  on  this  side  and  another  on  that 
side,  and  it  would  have  taken  him  all  the  morning  to  go  along  and  rub  the 
tracks  out,  if  he  had  attempted  anything  of  the  kind.  Now,  gentlemen,  if 
you  are  left  in  doubt  and  uncertainty  as  to  the  reason  of  his  flight,  then  all  the 
rest  of  this  testimony  explains  itsell,  because  a  man  when  he  is  going  to 
leave  takes  necessary  precautions;  when  he  was  on  that  train,  where  he 
sa5'S  he  had  gone  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  Rockingham  to  consult  Mr. 
Shaw,  and  Mr.  Ljons  spoke  to  him  and  asked  him  where  he  was  running 
to  and  he  seemed  somewhat  startled;  the  counsel  says  that  he  was  offended 
and  that  Mr.  L^'ons  apologized.  Do  you  remember  anything  in  that  testi- 
mon}'  except  that  Mr.  Lyon  said  that  he  seemed  rather  off'ended,  and  that 
was  the  whole  of  it?  If  he  had  intended  to  go  away,  or  if  such  a  remark 
was  made  to  him  when  he  was  under  apprehension  of  something  of  this  kind, 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  53 

it  maj^  be  reasonably  thought  that  it  would  startle  him  for  a  moment.  But 
he  passed  on  and  Mr.  Livingtone  had  a  conversation  with  him;  he  tells  Mr. 
Livingstone  all  about  it,  and  they  sa\'  that  because  he  told  Mr.  IJvingstone 
that  the  clothes  were  with  Mr.  Shaw — which  Mr.  Livingstone  forgot  all 
about  when  he  told  vSberifi  Smith  ot  the  conver.sation  a  few  minutes  later;-^ 
he  says  that  he  told  him  the  clothes  would  be  at  the  examination.  It  is 
natural  enough  that  he  should  have  told  him  so,  if  he  was  intending  to  go 
away.  This  man  was  influenced  b\-  fear  and  he  wanted  to  get  out  of  the 
country  until  the  matter  should  be  overpast  and  people's  minds  were  not  so 
irritated  against  him.  Wh}',  no  wonder  that  he  should  have  made  some 
remark  like  that. 

Then  Col.  McRae.  The  only  thing  in  all  the  3,700  miles  of  travel  with 
Col.  McRae  b\'  his  side  all  the  time  was  that,  when  he  was  told  that  he  ought 
to  clear  up  this  matter  as  to  where  he  was  that  night,  he  said  it  would  be  right 
hard  for  him  to  show  up  where  he  was,  and  that  is  the  whole  of  it;  that  is 
all  the  testimony.  Do  30U  think  that  if  he  had  been  guilty  of  this  crime 
that  he  would  have  given  himself  over  into  the  hands  of  the  enem\-  in  that 
way?  It  was  a  natural  remark;  when  a  man  knows  where  he  is,  and  his 
friends  are  not  able  to  testif\'  as  to  his  whereabouts  on  that  occasion,  he  may 
well  say  that  it  might  be  hard  for  him  to  account  for  it.  Mr.  McHryde  cor- 
roborates what  he  said  of  the  cause  he  gave  when  he  had  a  conversation 
with  Mr.  ;McBryde — I  have  referred  to  that  alreadj- — that  it  was  the  fear  of 
Millard  Moore. 

Well,  gentlemen,  there  is  another  matter.  They  say  that  he  showed 
his  evil  purpose  at  a  much  earlier  time,  after  the  taking  out  of  that  polic\\ 
with  which  I  have  shown  you  that  he  had  no  interest,  that  he  attempted  to 
poison  the  old  man;  that  he  went  over  there  and  absolutely  attempted  to 
poison  him;  and  the  testimony  with  regard  to  all  of  it  hinges  upon  the  fertile 
imagination  of  i\Ir.  Lee  Powell,  who  was  clerk  in  the  drug  store,  and  was 
probably  responsible  for  the  keeping  of  things  in  their  right  place,  and  that 
is  the  whole  of  it.  He  did  go  out  there;  he  seems  to  having  admitted  him- 
self that  he  did  give  Simeon  Conoley  some  candy.  Simeon  Conoky  came 
over  to  John  Wilkes's  house  in  the  morning  after  another  witness  had  testi- 
fied that  he  had  been  with  the  defendant,  and  that  soon  after  he  got  there 
he  was  taken  sick;  that  he  fell  back  in  such  a  waj-  that  Dr.  Prince  saj'S, 
taking  all  the  testimony  into  consideration,  would  lead  to  the  belief  that  it 
was  poisoning  by  strychnine  or  some  irritant  poison  which  would  affect 
the  spinal  column.  Now  what  happened  after  that?  Who  knew  it? 
Who  knew  anything  about  that  in  Laurinburg  until  the  prisoner  told  it  him- 
self? Was  any  charge  made  against  him  in  Larinburg  that  he  had  ever  at- 
tempted to  poison  his  uncle  until  he  went  there  with  a  note  from  his  aunt, 
telling  it  himself?  Is  that  the  way  men  do  who  have  committed  crimes  or 
attempted  this  diabolical  crime  ?  In  the  first  place,  the  testimony  is  that 
]\Ir.  Simeon  Conole3'  went  to  John  Wilke.s's  house,  and  that  he  had  the  balls 
of  candy.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  had  eaten  any,  but  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  he  ate  some,  that  Mr.  Wilkes  ate  some,  that  the  little  boy  ate 
some,  and  Mrs.  Wilkes  threw  the  rest  of  the  candy  into  the  fire.  You  know, 
gentlemen,  it  is  human  nature  with  the  most  of  us,  that  if  we  have  got  a  lot 
of  cand^-,  and  some  of  them  are  brandy  drcps  and  some  of  them  are  not — 
that  accordingly  the  brandy  drops  were  eaten,  every  one  of  them,  and  they 
did  not  hurt  the  p-eople  who  ate  them.  This  defendant  got  word  from  his 
aunt  that  the  deceased,  Simeon  Conoley,  had  been  made  sick  by  eating  of  the 
cand^'.  What  does  he  do  ?  Does  he  trN- to  hush  it  up  ?  Does  he  try  to  den 3' 
that  he  gave  him  any  candy?  On  the  contrarj',  he  goes  immediately  to  the 
store  where  he  got  it,  and  he  calls  for  the  box,  and  the  whole  thing  now 
rests  upon  the  recollection  of  ^oung  Mr.  Powell  Hill,  who  was  in  another  part 
of  the  store  sweeping  it  out  at  the  time,  and  who  in  sweeping  along  in  an- 
other part  of  the  store  could  testif}-  that  this  man  went  and  fumbled  all  that 
time  in  the  box,  and  then  got  some  other  cand\\  What  does  he  do  ?  He  in- 
quires for  Dr.  Everington,  and  he  comes  and  calls  for  biandx'  drops;  Dr.  Ever- 
ington  wants  to  give  him  a  fresh  box.  and  he  sa^'S  no,  and  calls  for  the  old 
box;  and  there  was  a  little  white  powder  found  in  the  corner  of  it;  is  it  an 


54  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

unnatural  thing  that  in  a  place  like  that,  by  some  means,  some  strychnine 
might  have  got  into  the  corner  of  the  box,  and  only  affect  a  few  drops  and 
not  the  balance  ?  Why,  they  had  made  mistakes  in  that  drug  store.  One 
of  the  best  men  in  that  county  testified  that  on  one  occasion  he  went  there 
to  buy  some  alum,  and  got  some  borax  in  its  place;  that  was  nothing  against 
the  drug  store;  those  mistakes  are  liable  to  be  made  anywhere.  We  have 
heard  of  the  most  terrible  mistakes  of  that  kind,  where  lives  have  been  taken 
by  reason  of  a  mistake  in  the  drug  store.  In  a  house  full  of  medicine,  with 
a  box  open — although  there  is  testimony  that  there  was  no  powdered  strych- 
nine open  at  that  very  time,  it  is  an  article  of  commerce  which  is  often  used, 
and  it  may  have  got  in  there  at  some  other  time.  A  little  had  fallen  in,  had 
fallen  in  the  corner,  because  it  seemed  to  have  affected  very  little  of  the 
candy;  the  other  balls  which  this  man  had  in  his  pocket,  and  which,  if  they 
had  had  enough  to  kill  him  with,  would  have  been  sprinkled  with  strych- 
nine, had  nothing  of  the  kind  upon  them,  because  they  had  no  effect  upon 
the  persons  who  ate  them,  John  ^X^ilkes  and  his  son.  So  that  is  the  whole  of 
it.  Dr.  Currie,  a  good  man,  gentlemen,  who  has  not  had  the  medical  educa- 
tion which  Mr.  Prince  has  had,  described  the  symptoms,  and  Dr.  Prince,  who 
is  a  distinguished  physician,  told  us  what  those  symptoms  would  indicate 
before  we  knew  what  the  testimony  of  the  State  was  going  to  develop.  We 
examined  him  closely  to  see  whether — because  with  the  little  knowledge  of 
that  kind  we  had  ourselves — those  same  symptoms  might  have  occurred 
from  other  causes  than  from  the  taking  of  strychnine.  We  knew  that  it 
might  be  caused  by  meningitis;  we  knew  that  even  in  children  and  some- 
times, I  submit,  in  grown  people  that  it  might  be  caused  by  a  violent  and 
acute  attack  of  indigestion,  and  that  it  was  a  species  of  lockjaw,  and  we 
asked  him  those  questions;  but  when  the  testimony  developed  that  this 
defendant  himself  went  and  made  complaint,  "why  you  are  selling  candy 
here  that  has  something  in  it  which  is  dangerous,"  of  course  we  assumed  that 
there  must  have  been  something  of  the  kind  upon  the  candy,  but  it  must 
have  been  an  exceedingly  small  amount,  because  it  takes  an  exceedingly 
small  amount  of  strychnine  to  kill  a  man,  as  was  testified  to  by  Dr.  Prince; 
he  not  being  in  the  habit  of  putting  up  prescriptions  himself,  did  not  like  to 
say  how  much  it  would  look  like  upon  the  point  of  a  knife;  still  he  told  you 
that  it  took  an  exceedingly  small  quantity  to  compass  the  death  of  a  person, 
and  the  quantity  therefore  on  this  occasion  must  have  been  infinitesimally 
small,  and  none  upon  the  rest  of  the  candy  which  he  had  there,  because  it 
did  not  affect  the  rest  of  the  persons  who  ate  it. 

Suppose  you  were  trying  him  now  for  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  Simeon 
Conoley;  suppose  you  had  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Everington  and  Powell  Hill 
and  Dr.  Currie,  and  that  the  testimony  was  presented  to  you  as  it  has  been 
in  this  case,  and  you  were  called  upon  to  say  whether  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  you  have  been  satisfied  that  this  defendant  had  attempted  to  take  the 
life  of  his  uncle  with  poison  by  strychnine,  could  you  but  say  that  there  was 
a  reasonable  doubt  ?  If  so,  this  falls  to  the  ground  and  the  poisoning 
passes  out. 

Now,  as  to  this  matter  of  tracks.  The  only  testimony  which  we  have 
got  about  ttiat  is  the  same  testimony  of  Mr.  John  Wilkes,  that  he  said  himself 
that  the  track  would  about  fit  his  foot,  and  that  where  there  were  as  many 
tracks  as  there  were  there  he  stepped  on  one  of  them.  I  will  not  trouble 
you  further  on  that  subject.  I  only  remark  that  he  said  it  looked  like  it  was 
a  No.  8  and  would  fit  his  shoe,  and  I  doubt  very  much  if  it  would  when  we 
come  to  examine  it  closely,  because  it  was  only  lo  inches  or  io}i  at  most; 
you  may  consider  that  question  as  to  whether  the  tracks  were  the  same 
size  as  his. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  will  come  right  down  to  the  occasion,  itself,  of  this 
horrible  murder;  and  instead  of  those  witnesses  who  have  been  subpoenaed 
here  by  the  State  and  which  the  State  are  complaining  of  us  for  not  having 
put  upon  the  stand,  and  which  the  State  had  here,  examined  and  discharged 
them,  but  would  have  produced  them  if  they  had  been  of  any  benefit  to  the 
State,  for  you  may  be  sure  that  no  stone  has  been  unturned  in  this  case  to 
bring  suspicion  upon  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.     We  brought  an  old  lady,  Mrs. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  55 

Effie  Conole^^  aged  85  \-ears,  stricken  with  palsy  32  years  ago,  and  unable 
to  walk  for  the  past  12  years,  sitting  in  that  house  in  her  chair,  wasted  and 
worn,  yet  you  could  see  that  her  mental  faculties  were  as  bright  as  yours; 
she  testified  to  j^ou  that  her  e^-e-sight  was  such  that,  but  for  the  tremulousness 
of  her  hands,  she  could  thread  a  needle  to-day;  she  testified  that  she  was 
sitting,  not  at  the  fireplace,  not  in  the  south-east  corner  of  the  room,  but 
she  was  sitting  out  from  the  fireplace  towards  the  south,  where  she  could 
see  out  of  the  door,  and  she  looked  out  of  the  door  and  saw  this  man  pass 
the  door.  The  moon  was  shining  as  bright  as  da}-  and  she  saw  him  perfectly. 
There  was  a  gust  of  wind  which  blew  something  back  from  him,  and  he 
gathered  it  up  under  his  arm,  and  she  saw  him  to  his  hips  and  she  corrob- 
orates the  testimony  of  the  other  witne.sses,  which  was  that  of  a  tall,  slender 
man  as  he  passed.  She  sa^s  she  has  known  this  bo\-  from  his  infancy,  that 
she  knows  him  well,  that  it  was  not  he,  that  it  was  not  his  shape,  that  it 
was  not  his  size,  that  it  was  a  man  taller  than  Sim  Conoley  himself,  who 
was  a  tall  nfan,  of  this  she  cannot  be  mistaken.  (Tentlemen,  there  is  some 
testimony  that  is  worth  more  than  others.  Do  you  know  that  if  you  destroy 
or  to  a  great  degree  take  awaj'  one  .sense,  as  for  instance,  if  the  sense  of 
hearing  is  affected,  that  the  other  senses,  taste  or  touch,  will  be  the  more 
exact.  Do  3'ou  know  that  a  poor  old  woman,  who  had  been  sitting  in  the 
house  for  years,  but  whose  natural  force  with  regard  to  her  eye-sight  and 
her  mental  condition  was  unabated,  that  she  saw  with  a  greater  accuracy, 
that  she  was  more  observant  than  people  generally  are,  and  that  a  man, 
pa.ssing  there  in  her  view  and  attracting  her  attention,  would  rivet  himself 
upon  her  mind  much  more  than  he  would  attract  the  attention  of  one  of  us, 
because  she  had  nothing  else  to  think  about.  Why  there  was  Mr.  McPhail, 
who  was  having  a  talk  with  Mr.  Murchison;  he  had  a  casual  glance  out  of" 
the  window  and  saw  a  man  some  distance  away;  the  impression  did  not  rest 
upon  his  mind  for  a  moment.  This  old  ladv  who  don't  see  people  often, 
and  who  on  that  occasion  was  looking  out  of  the  door;  I  suppo.se  you  believe 
that  after  the  testimony  of  Mr.  McLauchlin,  with  all  the  testimony  in  regard 
to  those  premises,  and  before  he  left  the  stand  he  had  to  admit  that  he  did 
not  make  the  plot,  that  it  was  not  correct;  swore  in  the  first  place  that  it  was 
a  correct  representation  of  the  whole  place  and  left  the  stand  with  the  remark 
that  it  was  not.  Do  you  know  whether  there  was  a  point  there  outside  of 
the  fence,  or  whether  it  was  a  straight  path  from  the  house  down  towards 
the  place  where  the  act  was  done.-*  Do  you  know  now  whether  there  was  a 
crook  in  the  fence?  Are  you  not  satisfied  above  all  other  things  in  your 
mind  that  if  there  was  a  crook  or  anything  of  the  kind,  it  certainly  was  not 
where  it  was  put  down  on  that  plot?  If  you  are  not,  there  is  no  use  in 
human  testimonj-,  becau.se  this  man  utterly  failed  when  he  attempted  to 
locate  the  position  of  the  plot.  You  remember,  gentlemen,  how  he  winced 
under  the  cross-examination;  a-ou  remember  how  he  commenced  to  say,  "I 
don't  recollect;  I  don't  recollect." 

It  put  me  in  mind  of  the  celebrated  trial  of  Queen  Caroline;  there  was  a 
celebrated  Italian  witness  who  was  put  upon^he  stand  to  try  to  swear  away 
the  virtue  of  that  woman;  when  they  got  him  under  the  influence  of  a  cross 
examination  and  got  him  to  a  certain  place — he  could  not  speak  English, 
he  spoke  through  an  interpreter — the  only  answer  they  could  get  out  of 
him  from  that  on  was  ";/o;;  w/  recordo,"  I  don't  recollect;  and  that  was  his 
name  through  the  balance  of  his  life.  And.  so,  I  could  not  help  thinking, 
when  Mr.  ISIcLauchlin  left  the  stand  of  the  Italian  whose  answer  was  "  non 
mi  recordoy 

Now,  gentlemen,  one  thing  ^-ou  are  satisfied  of  in  this  case  You  have 
been  satisfied  that  the  State  has  a  most  able  coadjutor  and  that  is  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  and  that  the  fine  Italian  hand  of  its 
detective  runs  through  a  great  deal  of  the  testimon}-  by  which  \.\\fz\  attempt 
to  fix  the  guilt  upon  the  prisoner.  Detectives  have  been  at  work  on  this 
case;  testimonj-  has  been  strengthened;  you  know  a  detective  is  pretty  much 
like  a  military  commission,  which  is  organized  to  convict.  When  a  detec- 
tive takes  up  a  case  he  is  never  satisfied  until  he  has  convicted  his  man,  and 
he  will  compass  heaven  and  earth  but  he  will  bring  witnesses  to  prove  such 


56  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

facts  as  may  be  necessan'  to  convict  him;  and  so  in  this  case,  when  you  find 
that  we  have  broken  down  utterly  two  or  three  or  more  of  the  witnesses  who 
testified,  that  we  have  cast  clouds  upon  much  of  the  rest  of  the  testimonv  in 
the  case,  you  can  not  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  charjie  asfainst  this 
man.  The  State  is  too  slow  !  The  good  old  State  of  North  Carolina,  which 
has  protected  us  all  our  days,  is  too  slow.  Blood  is  what  is  called  for;  and 
the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Companv  steps  in  to  the  aid  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina  with  its  armv  of  detectives.  The  country  is  scoured, 
houses  searched  without  a  warrant;  I  have  a  right  to  tell  you  so,  because 
there  is  no  warrant  under  the  Constitution  of  North  Carolina  that  could 
have  been  issued  under  any  charge  that  we  have  heard  of  by  which  these 
men  would  have  had  a  right  to  go  there  and  search  those  houses;  every  little 
circumstance  has  been  tortured  into  suspicion.  Will  you  hang  a  man  be- 
cause he  ate  an  orange,  and  because  Mr.  Crowson  savs  that  he  ate  some 
oranges  that  morning,  and  that  he  said  like  many  of  us  have  said,  "  did  you 
ever  feel  like  3-011  wanted  .something  and  could  not  tell  exactlv  what  it  was?" 
That  is  on  a  par  with  that  letter  that  I  read  the  whole  of  to  3'ou, 'which  they 
seize  upon  one  single  line  of  to  tr^-  to  compass  his  conviction.  Trifles  light 
as  air,  in  their  eyes,  are  made  .strong  as  proofs  of  Holv  Writ. 

But  he  is  captured;  he  is  brought  back  before  the  excitement  has  subsi- 
ded; clouds  and  darkness  encompass  him;  suspicion  no  longer  whispers,  hut 
is  trumpet-tongued  against  him;  blackness  itself  surrounds  him:  the  voice 
of  the  multitude  cries  out  for  his  blood.  But.  gentlemen,  there  is  one  pure 
rav  of  whitest  light  that  shines  out  through  th'?  gloom.  Now  comes  the 
value  of  a  spotless  reputation.  Did  vou  ever  see  a  man  with  such  a  char- 
acter proven  in  a  court  of  justice?  What  one  of  us  but  would,  when  we  lie 
down  to-night,  thank  God  for  such  a  reputation  as  he  has  proven  out  of  the 
mouths  of  friends  and  out  of  the  mouths  of  enemies.  He  was  a  child  of  the 
covenant;  he  comes  of  a  stock  who.se  virtue  and  goodness  and  stern  relig- 
ious principles  have  been  tested  in  the  day  of  persecution.  On  the  hills  of 
Scotland  and  b^-  the  surging  waters  of  the  Northern  ocean  thev  had  illus- 
trated faith;  they  had  come  to  the  hills  of  Cumberland  and  Richmond,  and 
to  the  plains  of  Robeson;  and  there  thes^  had  clung  to  the  faith  of  their 
fathers;  but  he  had  been  reared  like  Timothy  of  old,  at  his  mother's  knee,  in 
all  the  precepts  of  the  law;  he  early  gave  himself  to  the  services  of  his  Mas- 
ter; he  had  been  foremo-st  in  all  good  work;  he  was  an  oSice  bearer  in  a 
church  composed  of  men  whom  we  might  be  proud  to  call  brethren.  He  was 
prominent  in  Sunday  School;  he  was  the  head  of  the  Young  Men's  Chri;?- 
tian  Association;  he  was  foremost  in  all  the  innocent  pleasures  of  those  best 
of  people;  he  had  borne  upon  his  breast  the  "white  flower  of  a  blameless 
life."  Gentlemen,  you  heard  last  Sabbath  from  the  mouth  of  the  preacher, 
as  he  read  from  the  Sacred  Volume,  "  what  profit  is  it  that  we  have  kept  his 
ordinance?"  Now  weigh  it  in  the  scales  and  see;  is  it  of  no  avail?  Cir- 
cumstantial evidence  links  in  a  chain  every  circumstance  to  be  proven  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt,  every  link  perfect.  When  you  come  to  buy  a  chain, 
you  examine  each  separate  link,  and  if  one  of  them  is  imperfect  thech-nn  is 
of  no  account,  it  is  worthless;  so  there  must  be  no  weak  or  broken  link,  no 
circumstance  relied  upon  but  shall  be  proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  no 
hj^pothesis  consistent  with  his  innocence. 

It  is  no  sickly  sentimentalit}',  gentlemen,  these  instructions,  which  yo'i 
wnll  have  from  the  court,  that  you  must  be  satisfied  be^-ond  a  rea.sonable 
doubt;  it  is  not  so  much  for  that,  or  to  prevent  5'our  wreaking  vengeance 
against  a  man  charged  with  a  crime,  but  it  is  the  law  which  is  made  for  our 
protection  and  for  our  defence;  it  is  the  sacred  privilege  of  every  man  upon 
our  soil  that  he  can  never  be  convicted  of  crime  until  he  is  proven  guilty 
before  his  peers,  a  jury  of  his  country,  and  this  law,  which  you  are  to  bring 
to  bear  upon  this  man,  is  for  you  and  for  nie,  for  our  safe  guard  and  for  our 
protection . 

Gentlemen,  what  is  to-day?  It  is  the  day  appointed  by  civil  authority 
and  by  the  churches  for  the  meeting  together  of  the  people  throughout  all  this 
land  to  render  thanks  to  the  God  of  the  Harvest  for  the  benefits  which  He  has 
conferred  upon  us  during  the  year.     The  people  to-day  with  grateful  hearts  are 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conolby.  '57 

raising  their  hands  to  their  Maker  and  blessing  Him  for  all  the  good  which 
He  has  done  them.  But  our  Thanksgiving  has  been  deferred.  God  grant, 
gentlemen  that  it  may  be  put  into  your  hearts  and  minds  and  con.sciences, 
after  sifting  this  matter  to  its  end,  to  give  to  us,  to  give  to  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  to  give  to  his  mother  and  his  father  and  his  friends  a  Thanksgiving 
indeed.  He  is  a  good  son,  devoted  to  his  poor  old  mother,  who  comes  in  all 
the  purity  of  maternal  love  and  sits  beside  him  in  his  time  of  trial.  Give 
him  back  to  her,  gentlemen  !  Gladden  the  anxious  hearts  of  tho.se  who 
look  to  you  for  their  Thanksgiving.  You  have  in  your  breasts  the  God-like 
prerogative  of  opening  the  pri.son  door  to  the  captive  and  setting  at  liberty 
him  that  is  bound.  In  the  words  of  the  officer  of  the  law  at  the  beginning 
of  this  prosecution,  may  God  send  him  a  safe  deliverance. 


John  D.  Shaw,  Jr. — for  the  defense 


May  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gcntlemeti  of  the  Jury . 


I  stand  before  you  to  represent  the  defendant,  D.  A. 
McDougald.  I  explain  here  that  I  stand  not  only  as 
his  attornej-,  but  as  his  friend  and  companion.  He  \s, 
a  citizen  of  Richmond  county,  and  a  stranger  to  vou, 
but  has  said  that  upon  you  and  upon  the  God  of  his 
country  he  places  his  trial.  He  has  said  that  he  is 
willing,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  be  tried  b\'  3'ou;  it 
is  the  truth,  and  I  do  not  complain  of  it,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  the  truth,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  he 
p,is  not  tried  by  men  who  have  known  him  from  his 
f'cradle,  the  privilege  that  most  men  have,  the  privilege 
of  men  here  in  3'our  count3'^  of  Cumberland,  who  comd 
here  to  this  bar  to  be  tried  by  their  neighbors  and 
friends,  is  not  his;  but  he  has  said  that  he  is  contented 
JOHN  D.  SH.\w,  JR.,  yyith  vou,  and  I  say,  gentlenien,  that  I  am  contented 
of  Rockingham,  N.  c.     ^^  j^,^^,^  ^^^  ^^^  j^f^^    1^^,^  j^j^^  ^^  j  ^^      Richmond 

count}'  has  said  so  \>y  coming  here  with  its  best  and 
foremost  men  to  tell  5'ou  of  his  spotless  character,  of  his  pure  and  unexcelled 
name,  to  tell  j'ou  that  he  has  been  a  true  son,  a  true  man,  a  christian:  against 
him  there  is  no  word  to  be  said,  against  him,  gentlemen,  no  word  can  be 
elicited  even  from  his  bitterest  enemies;  against  him  the  pro.secution  here, 
with  all  its  blood-thirsty  character,  against  him,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
even  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  has  not  been  able  to 
bring  one  whisper  of  reproach;  and,  gentlemen,  no  mouth  has  opened,  no 
lips  have  parted  here  to  utter  one  word  save  in  praise  of  this  defendant.  Is 
it  not  singular,  is  it  not  unusual,  to  see  a  man  of  the  character  of  this 
defendant  charged  with  so  foul  a  crime?  I  know  not,  gentlemen,  what  you 
have  been  used  to  in  your  county,  for  I  am  much  of  a  stranger  here,  but 
never  in  vs\y  recollection,  never  in  my  experience,  have  I  seen  a  man  torn  from 
the  pinnacle  of  respectabilit}'  and  dragged  in  front  of  a  jur^'  and  charged  with 
a  crime  that  would  show,  gentlemen,  that  he  had  sunk  in  the  lowest  pits  of 
hell  and  corruption.  Never.  Never.  Never,  I  say,  never  have  I  seen  a 
man  brought  from  the  pinnacle  of  respectability,  down  from  a  height  where 
he  was  loved  not  only  by  the  parents  who  reared  him,  but  by  all  who  knew 
him,  brought  into  the  courts  and  charged  with  a  crime  that  the  deepest 
criminal,  the  foulest  villain,  the  darkest  scoundrel  that  ever  trod  on  our 
earth,  would  quail  to  be  charged  with;  brought  down  and  charged  with  one 
of  the  most  unnatural  offences  that  a  man  could  be  charged  with;  yea,  I  say 
most  unnatural,  because  it  is  well  nigh  as  unnatural  as  though  he  had  killed 
the  father,  or  the  father  would  be  charged  with  killing  the  child.  So,  you 
see,  gentlemen,  that  5-ou  have  a  great  dutj-  to  perform  here,  and  you  are  not 
alone  in  that;  I  have  a  duty  to  perform  also,  but  in  the  performance  of  mv 


S8  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

duty  I  do  not  claim  that  I  have  any  such  burden  resting  upon  ray  shoulder 
as  I  know,  and  you  know,  rests  upon  you.  My  duty  will  have  been  dis- 
charged when  I  shall  have  gone  over  this  evidence  and  the  law  as  I  under- 
stand it,  and  think  it  to  be,  and  have  presented  to  you  the  view  of  the 
defendant  here;  when  I  have  done  that  honestly  and  fully,  I  am  relieved; 
there  is  no  hereafter  to  what  I  do,  none  whatever.  I  cannot  take  his  life; 
the  law  does  not  say  to  me  that  I  can  take  it,  it  is  not  in  my  hands,  it  is  in 
yours. 

I  say,  gentlemen,  that  when  I  come  here  to  represent  the  defendant,  I 
tremble  for  my  own  weakness,  for  fear  I  can  not  represent  him  as  ably 
as  he  deserves  to  be,  as  truly  as  I  want  him  represented,  as  I  feel  that  I 
would  like  to  represent  him.  Much  more  do  I  tremble,  gentlenien  of  the 
jur3%  for  you;  no  true  man  can  stand  here  and  look  upon  you  twelve  men 
and  not  tremble  and  sympathize  with  you;  you  have  never  been  c;illed  upon 
to  perform  a  more  serious  service  to  your  country  or  to  any  man.  You, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  I  have  started  to  say,  you  have  in  your  hands  the 
life  of  D.  .\.  McDous^ald;  it  is  for  j-ou  to  sa}'  what  you  will  do  with  him; 
that  is,  he  has  consented  that  it  be  placed  in  your  hands,  the  State  of  North 
Carolina  has  so  con.sented,  and  you  have  it.  You  are  to  be  governed  by  the 
law  and  the  testimony  in  this  case  as  to  what  disposition  you  are  to  make 
of  his  life;  that,  I  believe,  you  will  do;  that,  geritlemen  of  the  jury,  I  know,  I 
feel,  you  want  to  do,  and  if  you  are  careful  and  give  this  matter  the  consider- 
ation that  it  deserves,  that  you  will  do  and  must  do. 

I  have  said,  gentlen>en,  that  I  stand  here  to  represent  the  defendant.  I 
claim  the  further  privilege  in  this  Court,  I  claim  here  to  this  Court  that  I 
represent  not  only  the  defendant,  but  that  I  represent  those  who  have  shed 
tears  around  the  grave  of  Simeon  Conoley;  I  claim  it  because  it  is  truth;  it 
is  the  truth  and  no  man  who  sits  here  for  the  prosecution  in  this  case  can 
say  to  you  that  he  represents  a  single  heart  that  has  been  grieved  by  that 
death  ;  no  man  can  say  to  you  that  he  represents  a  single  one  of  those  who 
are  now  wearing  mourning  for  the  death  of  Simeon  Conoley.  No  man,  gen- 
tlemen, no  man  for  the  prosecution  can  come  here  and  say  that  Simeon  Con- 
oley's  relatives  or  the  friends  of  Simeon  Conoley  call  for  the  blood  of  D.  A. 
MeDougald.  Is  it  not  so?  If  it  is  not  so,  why,  I  say,  have  you  not  been  so 
informed.  Let  us  hear  if  it  is  not  so.  We  hnve  our  Solicitor;  of  course  he 
represents  the  State.  We  have  another  very  important  personage  here,  the 
New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  that,  as  the  evidence  discloses, 
is  represented  by  Mr.  Neal,  We  have  other  attorneys  here,  who,  I  presume, 
represent  no  one,  they  tell  this  jurv  of  no  one;  it  has  not  been  said,  it  is  the 
question ;  if  you  have  been  told  of  it,  I  have  not  heard  it,  and  the  Lord  knows 
I  have  tried  to  hear  everything  that  was  said  in  this  court-room.  Then, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  say  that  I  am  glad  that  I  represent  the  defence, 
because  in  coming  to  you,  I  ask  of  3'ou  life  and  liberty,  not  death  and 
despair;  I  ask  you  not,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  dip  your  hands  in  the 
blood  of  any  man,  I  ask  of  you,  gentlemen,  not  a  verdict  of  which  }-ou  may 
repent  in  after  years,  not  a  verdict,  gentlemen,  that  you  may  shudder  at  the 
thought  of;  I  do  not  ask  you  to  baptize  your  hands  in  the  blood  of  Daniel  A. 
MeDougald,  not  that.  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  gladden  the  hearts  of  this 
grief-stricken  father  and  mother,  of  that  old  woman  who  lies  sick  in  the 
room  where  you  left  her  yesterday;  gladden  the  heart  of  old  John  Conoley, 
the  brother  of  Simeon  Conoley,  of  his  sister,  of  every  person  who  has  the 
right  to  call  him  kinsman  or  fr  end;  I  ask  it  here  of  you. 

Then,  gentlemen,  if  the  friends  and  relatives  of  Simeon  Conole3^  come 
here  and  tell  you  that  D.  A.  MeDougald  is  not  guilty,  who,  pray,  has  the 
riffht  to  come  into  this  court-room  and  say,  "  take  the  life  of  D.  A.  MeDou- 
gald ?"  I  think,  gentlemen,  the  natural  right  belongs  to  those  who  stand 
bowed  in  grief  before  you;  those  who  have  stood  around  that  open  grave, 
watching  that  bodj'  as  it  vanished  from  their  sight,  as  clod  after  clod  was 
thrown  into  the  hole;  those  are  the  ones  in  my  opinion  that  have  the  natural 
right.  There  is  no  right,  gentlemen,  but  it  is  a  right  that  is  claimed,  only 
claimed,  and  one  that  I  say  is  unnatural,  that  is  the  right  which  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  claims,  a  Northern  corporation,  a  cor- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  59 

poration  that  has  received  every  dollar  of  the  mone}-  that  it  asked  to  insure 
the  life  of  this  poor  man.  And  why  does  it  claim  this  right?  The\-  claim  it 
for  the  purpose  of  tr5-ing  to  escape  the  paj-ment  of  the  $5,000  to  Margaret 
Elizabeth  Conoley.  Whose  is  the  most  natural  appeal  to  \'ou  in  this  mat- 
ter.-* Those  that  hold  dear  the  memory  of  Simeon  Conoley,  or  that  corpora- 
tion that  comes  here  and  says,  "Ah,  gentlemen,  hang  D.  A.  McDougald; 
take  his  life  upon  your  souls  and  consciences,  carry  it  with  you  forever;  hang 
him.  If  you  don't,  we  will  have  to  paj^  $5,000;  hang  him  or  we  will  have  to 
pay  $5,000,  and  the  life  of  no  Southern  boy  to  day,  it  is  no  matter  how  strict 
and  upright  it  may  be,  is  worth  to  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance 
Company  the  sum  of  $5,000."  That,  gentlemen,  is  the  cry  of  that  Cornpa- 
n3^  whether  they  choose  to  deny  it  or  not.  They  cannot  put  themselves  in 
a  position  in  which  they  ask  for  anything  else. 

Now,  it  is  with  3'^ou,  the  life  of  this  boy,  right  and  fair  as  it  has  been, 
something  that  his  friends  have  all  been  proud  of,  something  that  his  county 
has  been  proud  of  Have  you  not  seen  man  after  man,  of  the  most  pleasing 
and  commanding  appearance,  walk  upon  that  stand,  after  placing  his  hand 
upon  the  Holy  Writ  of  Almight}'  God,  and  swear  so  solemnl}'  to  you  that 
this  man  was  a  man  of  good  character,  as  some  would  saj',  a  man  without 
blemish,  has  the  highest  character,  there  was  none  better.  But,  gentlemen, 
I  ask  you,  if  the  life  of  such  a  man  is  worth  more  than  $5,000  or  not;  I  ask 
you  if  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  is  not  asking  too 
much  from  you  ?     It  seems  so  to  me. 

But,  gentlemen,  as  it  has  been  remarked  by  my  friend  who  just  preceeded 
me,  D.  A.  McDougald  stands  before  you  presumed  by  the  laws  of  North 
Carolina  to  be  innocent,  and  throughout  all  this  investigation  it  is  5-our 
duty  to  look  upon  him  as  an  innocent  man,  never  treating  him  in  j-our  in- 
vestigation as  guilty;  it  is  your  duty  to  look  upon  him  as  innocent,  spotless, 
without  blame;  for  until  3'ou  come  in  here  and  sa}'  that  this  charire  is  proved 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  there  is  nothing  against  him.  That  burden  the 
State  must  assume,  the  law  for  the  protection  of  its  people  has  placed  it  on 
her.  I  say  that  when  the  State  comes  here  asking  a  verdict  of  this  kind,  or 
the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  when  it  comes  here  asking 
this  verdict,  asking  you  to  take  the  life  of  this  man  upon  your  souls  and 
consciences,  it  ffe  not  right,  it  is  not  fair;  have  not  \'ou  the  right  to  demand 
that  the}'  bring  to  you  testimony  which  is  proper  and  creditable  and  all  that 
is  at  the  command  of  the  State.  I  say  that  you  have  the  right  to  demand 
that  they  bring  to  you  all  the  testimonj'  that  is  at  their  command.  Aye, 
gentlemen,  if  j'ou  have  the  right  to  demand  anything  it  is  that  the  State  of 
North  Carolina  bring  to  you  all  the  testimony  that  it  can  get,  all  that  it 
knows  of,  in  order  that  you  may  sa}',  not  that  the  defendant  is  guilty,  or 
not  that  he  is  innocent,  but  that  you  may  say  whether  he  be  guiltv  or  inno- 
cent. That,  I  conceive,  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  you  here,  and  I  say  that 
3'ou  have  not  been  treated  fairly  in  the  trial  of  this  cause  here,  and  I  say  it 
with  a  feeling  that  I  speak  to  you  the  truth,  you  have  not  been  treated  fair- 
ly. Have  you  ?  Has  the  State  of  North  Carolina  and. this  Insurance  Com- 
pany brought  to  5-011  all  the  witnesses  ?  No.  Why  not  ?  Because,  Mr. 
Daniels  had  seen  those  witnesses  before  they  were  brought  here  to  your 
count\'  for  this  trial.  That  is  why.  Who  are  they  ?  Rufus  DeVane  is  one; 
the  State  of  North  Carolina  ought  to  have  put  up  Rufus  F  DeVane  and  let 
him  say  to  you  whether  D.  A.  McDougald  was  on  that  train  on  the  21st  of 
April  or  not,  in  order  that  you  might  reach  a  just  and  true  verdicFwith  all 
the  lights  given  you  by  the  State  and  Insurance  Company.  I  ask  you, 
ought  it  not  to  have  put  that  man  up  here  and  let  you  hear  his  evidence? 
Truly  it  ought;  it  knew  of  it;  it  knew  of  it  at  the  time  he  was  called  here 
upon  subpcena  of  the  State,  sworn  by  the  State  and  then  sent  to  his  home, 
discharged;  I  presume  they  told  the  gentleman  that  the  defendant  might 
need  him,  but  that  the  Insurance  Company  don't  need  you;  "3-ou  don't 
know  what  we  want  you  to  know;  you  won't  swear  to  what  we  want  you  to 
swearto;  gohome."  Let  the  defendant  lookout  for  himself,  and  the  New  York 
Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  is  on  the  war  path. 

Then  they  say,    gentlemen, — and  they  have  the  eflfrontery  here,  the 


so  •        The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald, 

State  has,  to  walk  up  here  and  ask,  "  whv  did  you  not  put  John  Conolev  on 
the  .stand;  why  did  you  not  put  Lizzie  Conoley  on  the  stand  for  the  defendant, 
and  why  did  not  you  put  Ed.q-ar  Conoley  o;i  the  stand  for  the  defendant?" 
I  say.  g-entlemen  of  the  jurv,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  of  North  Caro- 
lina to  work  UD  this  case,  that  the  burden  here  is  upon  the  State,  and  it  owes 
to  you  the  evidence  of  every  witness  which  it  knows  of  who  knows  anything 
about  this  prosecution.  It  says  to  you  bv  its  arg-ument  here  that  these 
people  do  know  soniethina;'.  and,  gentlemen,  havethev  treated  you  fairly;  have 
they  shaken  your  hand  across  the  life  of  D.  A.  McDougald  with  a  hand  not 
stained  with  blood,  with  a  fair  hand  and  an  hone.st  hand  such  as  you  have? 
No,  they  have  not.  Why,  gentlemen,  did  you  not  hear  the  Solicitor  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina  call  John  Conoley,  Margaret  E,  Conoley  and  Edwin 
Conolej- just  there  to  the  witness  stand,  as  soon  as  you  were  empaneled  in 
this  case,  and  announce  here.  "Your  Honor,  we  discharge  these  witnesses 
on  the  part  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina."  We  do  not  want  to  put  their 
evidence  to  the  jur3^  we  will  not  give  the  iurj-  the  benefit  of  the  evidence  of 
these  witnesses  ourselves.  That  was  done.  Now.  why  did  they  not  do  it? 
"Was  it  because  they  would  convict  Dan  McDougald?  No.  they  would  never 
have  gotten  their  arm  from  around  those  witnesses  if  they  could  have  gotten 
any  such  testimony  as  that  from  them.  Never.  Never.  The\^  turned  loose 
those  witnesses  and  hugged  up  this  old  negro,  Gillespie,  here  to  this  jury. 
Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  there  is  only  one  conclusion  that  you  can  draw  from 
their  action  here  in  this  case,  .so  far  as  those  witnesses  are  concerned,  and 
that  is  this:  if  placed  upon  the  stand  here,  they  would  corroborate  the  tes- 
timony of  that  old  lady,  who  sat  trembling  in  age  and  infirmity,  who  spoke 
to  you  with  a  voice  which  .seemed  to  me  spoke  to  you  from  heaven  it.self,  so 
close  is  she  upon  the  verge  of  the  grave.  That  is  why  they  did  not  want 
you  to  hear  them;  therefore  they  discharged  those  witnesses  here  in  j-our 
hearing.  "Wehave^'ou  men  here  in  this  box,  sworn  to  trj- this  case;  we 
have  delivered  into  your  hands  the  life  of  D.  A.  McDougald;  stumble  along 
with  it  now  the  be.st  3'ou  can;  we  bear  no  burden  herein;  we  do  not  hang 
him,  it  is  you  twelve  men  who  are  called  by  law  the  jury."  Not  us.  Not 
us,  is  what  their  conduct  says  to  you. 

The  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  wants  the  life  of  D.  A. 
McDougald,  and  will  they  put  up  testimony  here  that  would  have  a  tendency 
to  do  other  than  convict  D.  A.  McDougald  ?  No.  If  they  had,  gentlemen, 
it  would  have  been  disrespectful  to  Mr.  Daniels'  testimony,  and  you  could  not 
induce  them  to  be  disrespectful  to  Mr.  Daniels.  Let  him  scour  Robeson 
county;  let  him  search  the  houses  of  these  people;  let  him  force  people  who 
never  ate  supper  in  their  lives  at  12  o'clock  at  night  to  eat  at  12  o'clock;  let 
him  go  to  the  bedside  of  this  old  lady,  who  lies  there  in  her  age  and  infirm- 
ity and  talk  to  her  after  the  shades  of  night  had  fallen;  let  him  hound  these 
people  from  one  part  of  their  premises  to  the  other,  guided  bv  a  witness  in 
this  case,  John  Wilkes,  a  man  who  swore  he  did  not  know  anything  about 
Daniels,  took  him  to  the  house,  walked  up  to  the  door  without  even  stopping 
at  the  gate  and  hailing  them  as  did  that  man  who  called  himself  Lum  John- 
son. Indeed,  the  premises  were  treated  with  more  respect  by  that  man  who 
took  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley  than  by  this  man  Daniels  and  John  Wilkes. 

And,  gentlemen,  to  proceed  further  with  the  argument  of  the  case,  I  ask 
you,  let  us  look  over  this  testimonj'.  Was  there  any  motive  ?  Is  there  any 
motive  here,  sufficient  for  vou  to  treat  as  a  motive,  to  induce  the  defendant, 
D.  A.  MtDougald  to  commit  this  murder  with  which  he  is  charged,  and  the 
reason  I  ask  your  attention  first  of  all  to  this,  is  becau,se  the  motive  is  the 
heart  of  offences.  I  repeat  it,  the  motive  is  the  heart  of  all  offences.  It  is 
from  motive  that  all  men  act;  it  is  from  motive,  I  sav.  that  every  act  of  man 
springs.  Then.  I  say,  what  motive  has  the  State  of  North  Carolina  shown 
to  3'ou  here  to-dav  that  you  deem  sufficient  to  say  that  D.  A.  McDougald 
committed  this  offence  ?  Is  it  any  ordinary  motive,  gentlemen,  that  induces 
a  man  to  take  the  life  of  another  ?  Is  it  malice,  a  grudge  of  some  kind,  ill 
feeling  of  some  kind,  some  bad  spirit  which  must  be  avenged?  None  o 
that  here.  We  know  of  no  bad  feeling,  no  feeling  between  the  dead  man  and 
this  defendant  that  could  actuate  the  commission  of  such  an  offence  as  this; 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Corioley.  ^1 

for  old  Mrs.  Efllie  Cotioley  has  told  you  that  they  loved  one  another  like 
brothers,  that  they  we^e  glad  to  see  one  another;  that  D.  A.  McDougald  had 
been  kind  to  all  of  theftit  in  many  ways.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  say  to  you,  if 
there  is  one  thing  morethan  another  that  governs  nieii  in  this  lite  it  is  that 
of  feeling,  and  I  say  to  \-ou  that  the  man  who  entertains  bad  feeling  towards 
another  is  the  last  ma^n'to  do  a  kindness  for  the  man  he  hates.  Then  I  say,' 
gentlemen,  with  this  evidence  before  you,  and  it  is  uncontradicted  testimony, 
with  this  evidence  before  3'ou,  this  defendant  entertained  no  feeling  suffi- 
cient to  prompt  him  to  commit  this  crime;  what  then  is  it?  Wh}-,  we  have 
not  to  ask  the  relativ^es  of  Simeon  Conoley  what  that  motive  was,  don't  ask 
the  mother  of  Simeon  Conoley  what  was  the  motive  that  could  induce  D.  A^ 
McDougald  to  kill  Simeon  Conoley' ;  but  listen  !  The  Insurance  Company 
will  tell  3'ou  what  it  was;  it  is  from  that  quarter  you  must  hear  of  it.  Why, 
gentlemen,  the  motive  that  induced  D.  A.  McDougald  to  kill  Simeon  Conoly, 
on  the  night  of  the  2rst  of  April  last,  was  that  there  was  a  policy  of  insurance 
upon  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley  for  the  sum  of  $5,000,  payable,  not  to  D.  A. 
McDougald;  oh  no,  not  payable  to  him,  but  payable  to  Margaret  Elizabeth 
Conoley;  but  that  don't  make  any  difference,  whj^  it  don't  differ  to  whom  it 
was  payable,  the  fact  that  it  was  not  paj-able  to  D.  A.  McDougald,  and  that 
he  has  no  interest  in  this  policy,  makes  no  difference  in  this  motive.  Why, 
he  is  trying  to  get  it  for  his  aunt;  that  is  one  of  the  sides  they  take.  Then 
they  say,  if  he  is  not  trying  to  get  it  just  for  his  aunt  to  have,  wh}'  I  will 
tell  you  what  he  is  doing;  he  is  killing  Simeon  Conoley  for  the  purpose  of 
stealing  it  from  his  aunt,  (rentlemen,  do  you  believe  that  ?  Let  us  see;  and 
in  order  to  judge  this,  as  of  all  the  other  testimony,  all  the  other  facts  and 
circumstances  in  this  case,  it  becomes  necessarj'  that  you  should  keep  con-i 
stantly  in  your  mind,  and  use  your  knowledge  of  human  nature, — because 
these  facts  and  circumstances  are  to  be  governed — so  says  the  Supreme 
Court — largely  by  the  fact  as  to  whether  they  are  natural  or  unnatural, 
reasonable  or  nnreasonable.  Then,  I  say.  is  that  a  natural  motive.'*  Is  it 
reasonable  ?  And  when  T  say  is  it  reasonable,  I  mean  this;  is  it  a  reasonable 
way  in  which  D.  A.  McDougald  could  hope  to  get  po.s.session  of  the  money 
from  that  policy?  Is  it  a  way  in  which  you  could  rea.sonably  expect  him  to 
get  posession  of  that  money?  I  say,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  I  say  it 
without  fear, — for  I  believe  it  from  the  bottom  of  my  soul — I  sav  here,  unless 
5'ou  find  from  this  evidence  that  there  is  a  way  in  which  you  could  expect 
D.  \.  McDougald  reasonably  to  acquire  the  ownership  of  this  sum  of  5s. 000, 
then  it  is  your  duty  to  come  here  and  give  to  this  Court  a  verdict  in  this  case, 
that  will  show  to  the  people  of  Cumberland,  Robeson  and  Richmond  counties 
your  disapproval  of  pro.secutions  on  the  part  of  Insurance  Companies  against 
the  lives  of  the  citizens  of  our  State. 

Now,  how  could  he  get  it?  How  could  he  get  the  Insurance  Company 
to  pay  it  to  him  ?  vSuppose  he  took  that  policy  and  walked  up  to  the  Insur- 
ance Company  and  said,  "here  is  a  policy,  payable  to  Margaret  Elizabeth 
Conoley;  I  am  D  A.  McDougald,  it  is  not  transferred  to  me,  but  you  pay  it 
to  me."  Do  j^ou  reckon  he  would  g=t  it  ?  No  more  than  30U  or  I;  not  a  bit. 
S  ippose  then,  gentlemen,  that  Lizzie  Conoley  were  to  die;  would  he  get  it 
that  way  ?  Not  at  all.  Why  not?  Because,  gentlemen  it  is  in  evidence 
here  that  Lizzie  Conoley  has  a  child  who  would  first  take  it  under  the  law; 
and  if  she  had  no  child,  or  if  that  child  be  suddenly  stricken  to  death,  would 
he  get  it  then  ?  Why,  no.  She  has  a  brother  and  two  si.sters  who  would 
take  it,  and  she  has  not  only  a  brother  and  two  sisters,  she  has  a  mother; 
you  could  not  expect  him  to  get  that  mone\-  through  anj'  ordinary  chan^ 
nel  of  the  law,  not  much;  you  could  not  expect  the  Insurance  Company  to 
pay  it  to  him.  Then,  I  ask  you  this  question:  How  on  earth  would  he  get 
it  ?  That  is  left  to  the  Insurance  Company  to  .show  you.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  Margaret  Conoley'  is  crazy;  no  evidence  that  Margaret  Conoley 
does  not  need  this  money;  no  evidence  that  she  don't  want  it;  no  more  evi- 
dence that  she  don't  want  it  than  that  the  Insurance  Compan\-  lies  paid  it. 
Then  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  this  is  not  a  reasona-le  motive,  that  there  is  no 
motive  in  this  case,  none  on  earth;  and  if  there  is  no  motive  here,  I  say, 
without  any  fear  of  doing  you  any  wrong,  for  I  tell  you  now  I  would  not 


62  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

fntentionally  do  you  wrong,  I  have  respect  for  the  oath  you  have  taken;  I 
would  not  have  you  men  to  come  here  and  deliberately  perjure  yourselves  by 
reason  of  anything  that  I  say  to  you,  but  1  do  say  this:  I  say  here  that  if 
there  is  no  motive  in  this  case  that  you  deem  reasonable,  that  you  think 
would  induce  a  man  of  as  high  character,  of  as  unselfish  and  liberal  disposi- 
tion, to  commit  this  crime,  then  it  is  your  duty  to  come  here  and  tell  this 
Insurance  Company  they  cannot  get  out  of  paying  the  §5,000  this  way. 

After  we  leave  the  motive,  which  is  the  life  of  this  prosecution,  and  if  it 
is  destroyed,  like  all  other  things  that  have  a  heart  which  is  destroyed, 
soon  the  body  must  fail,  because  it  is  the  heart  that  is  the  life  of  everything; 
it  is  the  life  to  all  th  it  exists  in  nature;  it  is  the  life  to  every  species  of 
animal;  it  is  the  life  of  this  prosecution.  But  to  leave  that  and  go  further, 
to  show  you  what  kind  of  testimony  the  State  of  North  Carolina  is  using 
here,  to  show  you  bow  this  Insurance  Company  is  trying  to  steal  a  verdict 
from  you;  to  show  you  how  unfair  it  is;  to  show  how  they  have  imposed 
upon  the  oath  that  you  have  taken,  and  how  they  imposed  upon  the  solemn 
duty  that  you  owe  to  the  defendant  in  this  cause,  let  im  call  your  attention 
to  the  testimony  of  Henry  Smith.  And  before  doing  that,  let  me  call  your 
attention  to  the  general  character  of  the  testimony  both  on  the  side  of  the 
State  and  the  defendant,  and  that  is  this  :  I  ask  you,  who  has  brought  you 
here  the  cleanest,  most  respectable  testimony,  the  State's  witnesses  in  this 
cause,  or  those  for  the  defense?  And  when  I  ask  you  that,  I  ask  you  to 
name  to  me  a  witness  for  the  defense  whose  character  has  been  proved  to  be 
bad  before  you;  name  to  me  a  witness  for  the  defense  from  whose  character 
you  judge  that  he  might  be  induced  to  come  here  in  this  court  room  and 
swear  to  a  deliberate  falsehood.  Name  him.  The  Insurance  Company  itself 
cannot  name  him,  let  alone  honest  men  like  you.  How  about  the  State? 
Ah,  gentlemen,  did  you  not  feel  wronged  ?  Did  you.  not  feel  that  you  were 
not  being  dealt  properly  with,  when  you  saw  the  character  of  those  State's 
witnesses  assailed  successively;  when  you  saw  that  some  of  the  State's  wit- 
nesses were  disputed  so  positively,  so  pointedly  that  you  could  not  have  a 
doubt  in  your  mind  that  they  were  stating  falsehoods  in  what  they  said. 
I  felt  badly  for  you,  I  did;  I  felt  it  for  this  reason,  because  I  believe — and  I 
believe  it  with  all  my  whole  soul — I  believe  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  of 
North  Carolina,  when  it  comes  here  and  asks  you  to  take  the  life  of  a  man 
that  stands  so  fair  as  this,  to  bring  to  you  testimony  that  is  equally  respect- 
able, to  bting  to  you  witnesses  whose  characters  stand  as  high  as  his,  to  pit 
equal  against  equal;  certainly  don't  ask  you  to  do  a  thing  as  they  have  done 
in  this  case,  such  as  knock  a  brick  wall  down  with  your  fist,  and  that  is 
about  the  likeness  of  the  characters  here  in  a  great  many  instances;  not  that 
we  say  that  there  are  not  men  of  good  character  who  are  witnesses  for  the 
State,  because  I  am  glad  to  say,  as  always  will  be,  that  there  are  witnesses 
here  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  whose  characters  are  not 
surpassed  by  that  of  any  mati  I  know,  but  whose  characters  do  not  surpass 
those  of  the  defense. 

Then,  gentlemen,  let  us  look  at  the  testimony  of  Henry  Smith.  What 
is  he  over  here  for?  Why,  to  prove  that  the  man  who  was  seen  going  from 
Shandon  out  towards  Simeon  Conoley's  home,  who  looked  to  be  black,  and 
who,  I  say  from  this  testimony  here,  in  reality  was  as  black,  was  a  white  man 
painted;  that  is  what  they  brought  him  here  for;  and  I  had  just  as  soon 
believe  that  you  twelve  men  here  would  render  sufficient  credence  to  the 
testimony  of  that  negro  to  produce  conviction  in  your  minds  of  the  truth  of 
what  he  said;  why,  I  had  just  as  soon  believe,  gentlemen,  that  one  ot  you 
would  come  here  now,  without  ever  having  seen  the  defendant,  and  without 
being  in  that  country  at  all  on  the  21st  of  April,  and  swear  to  the  same 
things  that  Henry  Smith  did;  I  had  as  soon  believe  that  one  of  you  men 
would  perjure  yourselves  as  to  believe  that  you  will  believe  the  testimony 
of  Henry  Smith.  I  am  honest  in  my  estimate  of  his  testimony,  and  I  believe 
you  cannot  fail  to  be  similarly  impressed.  He  stood  here  and  told  you  that 
on  the  2ist  of  April,  about  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  a  man  came  from  down 
towards  Shandon  and  from  the  direction  of  the  house  in  which  Mr.  Jeff.  Cobb 
lived,  passed  by  him  as  he  stood  in  his  cart;  had  come  to  the  field  that  he 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  63 

was  just  driving  out  of,  about  eight  feet  away  from  him;  that  he  had  no 
beard;  no  specs;  but  had  a  duster,  a  package  of  some  kind,  a  valise  or  grip 
and  an  oil  cloth  done  up  on  a  stick  across  his  shoulder,  the  stick  being  held 
by  his  right  hand;  that  he  limped,  and  he  saw,  as  he  nodded  to  him,  white 
spots  on  his  neck  and  white  on  the  knuckles  of  his  hand,  that  he  passed  by 
him  and  went  on  towards  Mrs.  Humphrey's;  that  he  had  on  a  white  duster. 
Now,  gentlemen,  how  luany  swears  do  you  give  a  man  for  one  thing?  I 
have  a  right,  I  think,  to  claim  here  that  you  don't  give  a  man  but  one  swear, 
and  that  you  make  him  stick  to  what  he  first  swears,  and  that  ever}-  change 
that  he  makes  in  his  sworn  testimony  shall  be  a  damage  to  his  testimony. 
I  think  I  have  a  right  to  say  that,  because  he  has  sworn  to  saj-  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  Then  I  have  this  to  say  for  Henry 
Smith  :  II  he  told  the  truth  here  during  the  sitting  of  this  court,  he  did  not 
tell  the  truth  at  the  Mill  Prong  trial,  and  if  there,  then  he  did  not  tell  the 
truth  here;  and  I  believe,  gentlemen,  that  he  told  the  truth  at  Mill  Prong, 
because  up  to  the  time  of  the  Mill  Prong  trial,  when  the  air  of  the  country 
was  pure,  and  no  Danielsts  were  floating  around  in  the  country;  before  the 
Mill  Prong  trial  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  was  not 
prosecuting,  ah!  no.  It  has  come  out  here  in  evidence  that  1  was  the  prose- 
cuting attorney  in  the  Mill  Prong  trial  against  men  that  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  saying,  from  the  e\idence  here  before  us,  that  I  have  reason  to  believe 
are  not  clear  of  this  murder.  I  propose  to  argue  that  to  you  before  I  am 
through.  Not,  gentlemen,  from  anything  that  is  testified  to  here,  but  be- 
cause the  only  motive  that  has  ever  been  told  you,  that  you,  in  my  opinion, 
could  consider  as  one  sufficient  to  induce  a  man  to  commit  the  crime, 
exists  as  to  one  of  these  men  who  talked  to  Henry  Smith.  I  say  that 
we  have  every  right  to  say  that  Henry  Smith  told  the  tiuth  at  Mill  Prong, 
not  here,  because  then  it  had  only  been  a  few  days  since  he  saw  the  man  he 
spoke  of;  it  had  only  been  a  few  days  after  what  he  saw  was  born  in  his 
memory;  his  imagination  had  not  had  time  to  take  wings;  he  had  not  been 
biased  by  any  outside  influence.  It  was  since  then  we  had  detectives  scour- 
ing our  land,  searching  the  houses  of  the  community,  driving  from  one  quar- 
ter to  another,  wresting  the  law  from  its  purposes  by  taking  out  papers  for 
the  purpose  of  searching,  or  by  having  none  at  all,  which  I  suppose  was  the 
cat.e,  lor  I  tell  you  that  I  do  not  believe  that  in  Richmond,  Robeson  or  Cum- 
berland, or  any  other  county  of  our  State,  we  have  Justices  of  the  Peace  who 
would  undertake  to  give  a  man  a  paper  to  do  something  with  he  had  no 
legal  right  to  do  under  any  circumstance,  as  the  search  was  not  warranted  by 
law,  and  could  not  have  been  warranted  by  law  because  there  is  no  law  for 
securing  papers  for  such  a  purpose. 

L»»-nLlemen,  here  is  what  Henry  Smith  swore  at  Mill  Prong— you  heard 
Mr.  eiiarles  l^urcell  say  that  Henry  signed  it,  you  heard  him  say  that  it  was 
read  there  to  Henry  Smith,  that  it  was  written  down  in  his  presence— now, 
listen  to  It:  'i,  Henry  Smith,  being  sworn,  aged  21,  say,  I  saw  a  man,  did 
uoL  look  like  anybody  1  ever  saw,  had  on  a  duster  and  wide-brinimed  hat,  a 
mousiaclie  and  a  Utl.e  beard  under  his  chin."  I  submit  to  you,  in  all  fair- 
ncs.b  and  honesty,  that  the  testimony  of  Henry  Smith  here  was  that  the 
man  had  no  beard  that  he  saw;  that  was  his  testimony  here  in  this  court; 
here  lie  sa3s,  '■  Had  a  little  beard  under  his  chin.  He  was  on  the  opposite 
side  ol  the  road  Irom  me;  I  saw  him  in  Mr.  Jeff  Cobb's  lane  about  2  o'clock, 
had  Oil  specks."  i  suoiuit,  gentlemen,  that  there  has  been  no  testimony  of 
the  bpecKs  here  save  Irom  the  mouth  of  Fanny  Mears  and  Mrs.  Humphrey; 
1  submit  to  you  that  Henry  Smith,  here,  in  this  court,  said  that  he  had  no 
recollection  ot  any  specks.  I  am  not  trying  to  pervert  this  testimony,  it  is 
your  province  to  correct  me  with  your  recollection  of  it.  I  have  tried  hard 
to  recollect  it,  and  I  don't  believe  I  have  made  an}-  mistake.  "  A  slim  man, 
tall  and  slender,  had  a  valise  and  a  stick  run  through  it  on  his  shoulder — 
(signed)  Henry  Smith."  I  have  read  to  you  every  line  of  his  testimony. 
Did  I  read  to  you  anything  about  white  on  the  hands,  white  on  the  neck  of 
this  man,  that  he  saw.'  Did  I.'  No,  it  is  not  down  there;  no  man  can  read 
it  Irom  that  paper.  Then,  are  you  going  to  allow  witnesses  who  are  broue^ht 
here  by  the  State  to  swear  at  one  place  that  they  see  things  and  at  another 


64  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald  ' 

place  that  they  do  not  see  certain  things.  No,  no;  the  life  of  a  good  man  is 
at  stake,  and  ^-ou,  I  think  will  demand  the  strictest  proof;  you  will  demand 
such  proof  here  from  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  as  would  relieve  you  of 
any  shadow  of  suspicion,  or  any  mistake  on  its  part.  I  state  here  that  you 
cannot  be  satisfied  that  the  testimony  of  Henr}'  Smith  in  this  Court  is  not  a 
mistake,  you  cannot  be  satisfied  that  there  is  not  some  bias  about  that  wit- 
ness. Aye,  further,  are  j-ou  satisfied  that  he  has  not  talked  to  Mr.  Daniels? 
I  am  not.  No.  No.  We  won't  act  on  evidence  like  that,  gentleman, 
brought  here  bj'^  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  Don't  yov:  deem  it  a  duty 
here  that  5-ou  owe  to  the  defendant  to  become  doubly  cautious  in  the  case? 
Don't  3'ou  deem  it  ^-our  dutj'  to  look  at  the  testimony  of  every  man  cau- 
tiouslj'?  I  say  here  that  you  cannot  be  too  careful;  you  cannot,  gentlemen, 
any  more  than  Pontius  Pilate  did,  dip  j-our  hands  into  a  bowl  of  water  and 
sa^',  5-ou  wash  your  hands  of  the  blood  of  this  man,  and  turn  his  life  over  to 
the  public  executioner.  No,  he  did  not  have  the  right  to  do  it,  he  did  not 
wash  his  hands  clear  of  the  blood  of  j-our  Saviour  and  the  Son  of  God;  nor 
can  you.     Right  is  right  and  wrong  is  wrong  and  alwaj-s  will  be. 

Is  that  all?  I  take  that  testimony  up,  gentlemen,  as  a  very  strange 
feature  in  that  trip  from  Shandon  that  the  State  talks  to  you  so  much  about. 
Now,  I  ask  5'ou  to  offer  this  question  to  the  State  of  North  Carolina  in  its 
arguments;  tell  them  to  name  any  two  witnesses  who,  between  Shandon  and 
the  home  of  Simeon  Conojej',  describe  any  man  alike;  tell  them  to  name  any 
two  witnesses,  make  them  do  it,  and  while  you  are  doing  it,  gentlemen,  I 
ask  you  what  is  j'our  recollection  of  the  testimony?  I  tell  3'ouhere,  upon  my 
recollection  of  this  evidence,  that  no  two  witnesses  who  have  been  sworn 
before  you  here  in  this  cause  name  or  describe  this  person  that  the}'  talk  to 
you  so  much  about  in  the  same  way.  If  it  is  the  same  person,  why  in  the 
name  of  God  cannot  he  be  described  in  the  same  way  every  time  and  every- 
where ?  Wh}'  is  it  ?  You  have  a  right  to  ask  that  question,  and  it  is  fair  to 
the  defense  that  j'ou  should  ask  it  of  them,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  I  have  a 
right  to  ask  you  to  ask  it.  But  more.  Is  that  the  same  person  that  Char- 
lotte Dumas  saw  get  off  the  train  at  Shandon  ?  If  you  say  it  is,  you  say 
tnore  than  any  witness  in  this  case  has  said.  Name  the  man,  woman  of 
child  who  has  said  here  in  this  case  that  this  man  that  Henry  Smith  under- 
takes to  describe,  and  describes  in  two  different  ways, — that  he  contradicts 
himself  about,  —name  the  man  who  tells  you  that  this  is  the  same  man  that 
Charlotte  Dumas  saw.  Not  one.  And,  gentlemen,  the  State  of  North  Caro- 
lina is  asking  you  to  see  more  than  its  own  testimonj'  does.  Now,  let  us 
see  if  it  is  the  same  man.  What  did  Charlotte  Dumas  say  was  the  looks  of 
the  man  she  saw,  and  how  far  was  Charlotte  Dumas  from  the  man  ?  Char- 
lotte Dumas  was  one  mile  from  where  Henry  Smith  saw  that  man  according 
to  the  evidence,  one  mile  away;  and  she  says  she  saw  a  man  in  Shandon 
who  passed  her  with  a  white  duster  on,  who  had  no  beard,  who  had  a  grip 
sack  strapped  across  his  .shoulders,  who  had  on  dark  clothes,  who  had  no 
specks  on,  who  was  not  carrying  any  bundle  on  his  shoulder.  You  have 
heard  what  Henry  Smith  says.  Was  it  the  same  man  ?  If  that  was  all, 
gentlemen,  would  j-ou  be  compelled  to  say  he  was  the  same  man?  The 
State  says  we  will  supply  the  openings  within  that  mile,  we  will  show  that 
it  was  the  same  man,  and  how?  B3'  describing  a  man  different  from  what 
Henry  Smith  or  Charlotte  Dumas  described.  We  will  tell  you  of  a  man 
who  did  not  look  like  the  man  that  Henry  Smith  saw,  and  we  will  tell  you 
ot  a  man  that  did  not  look  like  the  man  that  Charlotte  Dumas  saw,  and  we 
know  that  will  satisfy  the  oaths  of  thisjur}^  that  the  man  that  Charlotte 
Dumas  and  Henry  Smith  saw  was  the  same  identical  man,  only  one  man. 

Now,  here  is  the  way  it  does  it :  Take  Charlotte  Dumas'  testimony; 
she  saj'S  that  she  was  some  two  or  three  hundred  yards  away  from  the  depot, 
living  in  the  section  house;  that  this  man  got  oft  the  train  and  came  by  her 
house,  nodded  to  her,  started  down  the  side  track,  left  that,  turned  off"  on  a 
path  that  went  out  there  through  a  field  to  where  Graham  lived,  on  which 
thev  got  water.  That  is  Charlotte  Dumas'  testimony,  in  her  words,  I  think, 
exactly.  What  does  this  man  say  now,  gentlemen,  at  the  depot  ?  Capt. 
McPhail  says,    "I  saw  the  man;  might  have  been  white;  think  he  was; 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  65 

I  would  not  swear  that  he  was  white,  because  I  only  had  a  casual  glimpse  of 
him.  I  was  talking  to  Capt.  Murchison,  one  of  the  officers  of  the  Cape  Fear 
&  Yadkin  Valley  Railway,  and  had  only  a  casual  glimpse  of  the  hack  of  a 
man  with  a  dove-colored  duster  on.  Charlotte's  man  had  white  duster  on  ; 
Capt.  McPhail  said  that  he  saw  no  package,  no  valise,  no  grip-sack  strapped 
across  the  shoulder  of  the  man  he  saw  at  the  depot.  Is  that  Charlotte  Du- 
mas' man  ?  Whj-,  no.  Don't  5  ou  recollect'  that  Charlotte  Dumas  said  the 
man  that  she  saw  turned  off  on  the  path  by  Tier  house;  that  she  and  others 
went  on,  to  go  over  to  Mr.  Grahams  to  get  water;  that  the  man  turned  off 
on  that  path  and  went  out  on  that  path  across  the  field  to  Graham's  house  to 
get  the  water.  McPhail  says  he  saw  the  man  within  30  yards  from  the  depot, 
not  on  the  path;  why  it  was  not  in  .30  yards  from  the  depot,  the  path  was 
two  or  three  hundred  yards  from  the  depot,  the  one  on  which  she  went  to 
get  her  water.  Furthermore,  the  dusters  are  not  alike.  Charlotte's  man 
had  a  grip-sack  across  his  shoulder;  Capt.  McPhail's  man  had  no  grip-sack; 
Charlotte's  man  had  a  white  duster;  Capt.  McPhail's  man  had  a  dove-col- 
ored duster.  Where  did  the  Captain's  man  come  from;  nobody  has  seen  a 
man  get  off  that  train  at  Shandon;  no  witness  has  sworn  that  they  saw  a 
man  get  off  that  train;  that  is  the  presumption  that  the}'  raise  from  that, 
that  Charlotte  Dumas  sa^s  she  saw  a  man  at  the  sedtion-house  Capt.  Mc- 
Phail says  that  as  to  whether  the  man  that  Charlotte  Dumas  saw  got  ofl"  the 
train  and  then  passed  her  must  depend  on  where  the  train  stopped.  No 
evidence  here  that  that  train  stopped  at  the  section-house,  is  there.'*  None 
whatever.  They  had  a  pretty  good  train  on  that  morning  of  about  fifteen 
cars;  that  is  the  testimony. 

Two  different  kind  of  men  are  seen.  What  is  the  next  scene?  Jeff.  Cobb, 
about  three-quarters  ot  a  mile  from  Shandon,  or  between  a-quarter  and  a-half 
mile  from  Capt.  McPhail's  house,  with  the  field  open  on  both  sides,  with  the 
exception,  as  he  says,  of  a  little  woods  that  stands  there  for  a  space  probably 
of  one  hundred  yards  next  to  his  house,  on  the  right  hand  side  of  the  road, 
as  the  man  came  from  Shandon;  that  is  the  testimony.  With  the  exception 
of  about  one  hundred  \'ards  of  woods,  right  on  the  right  hand  side  of  the 
road,  it  was  a  big,  plain,  public  road  down  which  the  man  is  coming. 
When  he  sees  the  man,  he  says  he  sees  a  black  man.  Now,  I  ask  you,  can 
you  say  here  that  you  are  satisfed  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  man 
that  Jeff.  Cobb  saw  was  the  man  that  Charlotte  Dumas  saw;  or  do  you  say, 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  you  are  satisfied  that  the  man  that  Capt. 
McPhail  saw  is  the  man  that  Jeff.  Cobb  saw  ?  Do  you  say  that  these  two 
n>en  are  really  but  one  maYi?  If  you  do,  I  want  to  ask  you  one  question: 
Where  under  heaven  did  he  black?  Do  you  think  he  stopped  in  the  public 
road  and  blacked  his  face?  No,  gentlemen,  you  don't  conclude  that,  because 
here  is  the  way  to  judge  that  testimony,  n  you  or  I  were  going  to  black  our 
faces  for  the  purpose  of  committing  some  crime  would  you  sit  down  in  a  big 
road,  where  houses  and  fields  are  on  both  sides  of  it,  and  there  black  your 
face?  No.  Jeff.  Cobb  was  there  in  the  road;  Fannie  Mears  was  going  down 
the  road;  Henry  Smith  was  there  a  little  further,  some  100  or  150  yards  fur- 
ther up  the  road;  Fannie  Mears  and  Henry  Smith  going  down  the  road;  If 
they  saw  him  coming  out  of  the  woods,  why  did  they  not  say  so?  There  are 
three  witnesses,  gentlemen,  who  had  their  eyes  on  that  road;  Fannie  Mears 
coming  directly  down  the  road,  Henry  Smith  coming  down  that  road,  all 
^oing  towards  Shandon  from  the  direction  in  which  they  saw  this  man  come, 
in  full  view  of  the  road.  Yet,  gentlemen,  not  one  of  them  states  that  that 
man  ever  left  the  road.  They  say  that  he  was  on  the  road  all  the  time;  that 
he  did  not  go  out  of  the  way;  that  he  did  not  shun  anybody;  shunned  noth- 
ii;g,  but  walked  deliberately  on  down  that  road;  that  it  was  a  bright,  open, 
sunshiny  day,  about  2  o'clock  in  the  day  time. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  long  he  had  to  ulack.  They  say  he  did  black;  that 
one  of  the  white  men  seen  at  Shandon  did  black  before  he  got  to  Jeff.  Cobb's. 
How  much  time  did  he  have?  It  was  between  r  and  2  o'clock  when  he  got 
to  Shandon,  if  he  came  there  on  that  train;  it  was  between  i  and  2  o'clock 
when  the  train  got  there;  and  that  is  when  they  say  it  was  that  they  saw 
the  man. — after  the  train  came.     It  mus   h  we  been  afterwards  because  Capt. 


66  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

Murchison  had  gotten  off  the  train  and  was  standing  there  in  the  depot. 
We  know  that  the  train  was  in  Shandon  sometime  before  this  man  was  even 
seen  there,  within  thirty  yards  of  the  railroad.  So  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  he 
must  have  been  there  sometime  inquiring  about  the  business;  I  suppose,  as 
we  have  reason  to  presume,  that  Capt.  McPhail  had  finished  with  the  train; 
he  had  finished  with  the  freight,^that  was  to  be  delivered  to  him  by  the  train, 
because  he  was  on  duty  there  ;^s  you  all  know;  he  was  on  that  platform 
checking  off  on  his  bills  of  lading  the  freight  that  was  given  him  from  the 
cars,  verifying  the  freight  delivered  to  him,  when  he  quitted  that  place  of 
duty  and  was  in  an  office  talking  to  an  official  of  the  road.  So,  gentlemen, 
the  train  had  been  there  sometime.  Now,  whose  duty  is  it,  I  ask  you,  to 
prove  to  you  that  this  man  blacked  himself  between  JefF.  Cobb's  ana  Shan- 
don ?  Whose  duty  is  it  to  prove  to  you  that  he  had  ample  and  sufficient 
time  to  black  himself  between  JefF.  Cobb's  and  Shandon  ?  I  submit  that  it 
is  not  the  duty  of  the  defendant;  he  is  innocent  until  you  say  you  are  satis- 
fied beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  he  is  guilty;  the  law  says  he  is  not. 
Then,  gentlemen,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  to  prove  that 
to  you,  and  not  only  to  prove  it,  but  to  prove  it  here  in  such  a  way  as  to 
satisfy  you  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  he  did  black  himself,  that  he 
had  time  to  do  it,  and  that  he  blacked  himself  in  the  public  road  or  in  the 
woods.  You  have  a  right  to  demand  that  they  should  tell  you  which  place 
it  was,  and  that  he  was  the  same  man  that  was  seen  at  Shandon,  and  that 
he  was  the  man  that  Charlotte  Dumas  saw;  the  man  that  Capt.  McPhail 
saw,  and  then  say  that  that  man  was  D.  A.  McDougald. 

Now,  gentlemen,  follow  it  link  by  link ;  it  is  the  best.  The  kind  of  passion 
that  the  State  went  into  awhile  ago  is  not  the  way  to  get  a  verdict  from  this 
jury.  I  will  discuss  every  stage  of  this  testimony.  Was  it  D.  A.  McDou- 
gald ?  Charlotte  Dumas  saw  him.  Did  she  say  that  the  man  who  spoke  to 
her,  and  passed  by  her  house  within  a  few  feet  of  her,  who  turned  from  the 
railroad  and  went  down  the  path,  who  had  a  white  duster  on  and  a  grip-sack 
across  his  shoulder,  was  D.  A.  McDougald  ?  No,  she  did  not.  Will  you  do 
it?  If  you  do,  you  will  do  more  than  Charlotte  Dumas  did;  she  won't  do  it; 
she  won't  undertake  to  swear  it,  and  in  heaven's  name  have  I  not  the  right 
to  say  that  this  jury  won't  undertake  to  do  what  the  witness  herself  won't 
do?  I  believe  I  have.  Gentlemen,  I  will  do  it;  I  believe  I  may  say  for  this 
jury  that  this  man  was  not  D.  A.  McDougald,  according  to  the  evidence  in 
this  case.  Now,  what  follows  ?  If  that  was  not  D.  A.  McDougald,  was  it  D. 
A.  McDougald  that  Jeflf.  Cobb  saw?  JefF.  don't  say  so;  he  has  had  his  say; 
JefF.  has  been  brought  here  and  has  sf)oken  upon  the  witness  stand  and  faced 
this  prisoner,  and  he  has  not  said  that  it  was  D.  A.  McDougald;  he  has  had 
his  cnance  to  say  it,  and  if  he  won't  do  it,  will  you  do  it  ?  Why,  JefF.  Cobb 
don't  even  describe  the  man  that  left  Shandon,  not  a  time.  What  is  Fannie 
Mears'  testimony?  Fannie  is  a  new  bird  in  the  case;  she  has  been  dis- 
covered, gentlemen,  since  the  Mill  Prong  trial.  Who  found  her?  Oh,  well, 
I  reckon  Mr.  Daniels  found  her — a  recent  discovery  on  the  part  of  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  Fannie  Mears;  she  is  brought  here, 
what  does  she  say  ?  She  says  she  met  a  man  coming  from  towards  Mr.  JefF. 
Cobb's  house  as  she  went  to  Shandon;  that  it  was  a  curious  looking  man; 
that  he  had  a  black  face;  that  he  had  on  specks;  that  he  had  on  a  white  dus- 
ter; that  he  had  on  great,  long  side-locks;  that  he  had  a  bundle  on  his  shoul- 
der; that  he  was  walking  on  the  road  towards  where  it  is  said  Henry  Smith 
met  this  man,  and  where  Mrs.  Humphrey  lives  and  where  Neill  Smith  lives. 
Now,  gentlemen,  Fannie  Mears  had  the  opportunity;  the  State  of  North 
Carolina  had  her  here  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  that  man  as  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald. Did  she  say  it  was  D.  A.  McDougald?  No,  she  did  not.  Well, 
if  Fannie  Mears  won't  say  that  that  was  D.  A.  McDougald,  will  you  say  so? 
Why,  gentlemen,  the  State,  when  it  asks  you  to  .say  that  that  man  that 
Fannie  Mears  saw  was  the  man  who  sits  here  before  you  to-day,  asks  you  to 
say  more  than  any  witness  has  ever  told  j'ou.  Another  time  we  will  con- 
sider Fannie  Mears.  Why  have  we  not  heard  of  Fannie  before  ?  Is  this  the 
first  investigation  of  this  matter?  Ah,  no.  No.  Dr.  Lewis  tells  you  as 
coroner  of  the  county  of  Robeson   he  investigated   this  murder.     Fannie 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  67 

Mears  tells  you  that  she  was  not  examined  in  this  case  before,  that  she 
has  never  been  examined  before  to-day  in  this  case.  Then  who  created 
Fannie?  Who  found  Fannie?  Why,  gentlemen,  the  Justice  ot  the  Peace 
who  tried  this  case  at  Mill  Prong  could  not  find  her;  she  was  not  known  to 
them;  if  she  had  been,  don't  you  know  she  would  have  been  there?  Jeflf. 
Cobb  was  there,  Henry  Smith  was  there,  Mrs.  Humphrey  was  there;  hosts 
and  hosts  of  witnesses  were  there;  then  I  say,  why  could  not  Fannie  Mears 
be  found;  if  she  told  what  she  saw  and  heard,  don't  you  know  she  would 
have  been  known  of;  don't  you  know  it  would  have  been  communicated  to 
these  Justices  of  the  Peace,  who  were  anxious  to  investigate  this  killing? 
But,  no,  not  a  mortal  soul  knew  that  Fannie  Mears  knew  what  she  said 
here  in  this  court.  We  heard  nothing  of  her  until  Mr.  Daniels  took  his  trip, 
nothing  at  all,  notathin^.  Now,  I  ask  you  this  question,  gentlemen:  Don't 
you  require  here  in  your  investigation  of  this  evidence  that  when  a  witness 
wants  to  come  and  testify  that  a  man  blacker  than  anything  she  ever  saw 
passed  her  on  the  road;  that  he  was  curious  looking,  more  so  than  anything 
she  had  ever  seen  before,  she  should  not  keep  all  this  a  secret  for  month  on 
top  of  month?  Did  she  do  what  you  would  do,  tell  what  she  suspected  and 
thought  ?  V  ould  you  not  do  it  ?  Would  not  every  man  on  this  jury,  who  saw 
a  man  of  that  description  pass  you  on  the  road,  tell  your  neighbor  right 
away  ?  Why,  it  is  your  duty  to  tell  him  that  he  may  be  on  his  guard  in 
case  there  was  a  lawless  man  in  the  community.  Yes,  gentlemen,  j'ou 
would  have  done  it;  Fannie  would  not  have  gone  all  the  way  to  Shandon 
and  all  the  way  back  home  and  told  nothing.  Fannie,  whom  did  you  tell  ? 
I  told  my  father  about  it,  when  I  saw  him  at  home.  Now,  gentlemen,  I 
want  to  ask  one  question,  where  is  that  father  ?  I  will  tell  you  he  is  hard  to 
find,  or  Mr.  Daniels  would  have  found  him.  The  State  did  not  show  you 
that  daddy;  ah,  no,  but  it  knew  this,  it  knew  Fannie  ought  to  have  told  it; 
knew  it  was  Fannie's  sworn  duty  to  tell  that  she  had  seen  this  man,  to  tell 
it  to  somebod)';  and  it  thought  it  would  just  take  a  jump  and  risk  where  it 
would  fall;  it  would  risk  j'our  catching  it  in  your  arras,  or  kicking  it  off 
with  your  foot;  and  when  they  tell  you  she  did  tell  her  daddy  and  then  not 
bring  the  daddy  here  to  prove  it  by,  is  that  fair  play  ?  No,  j'ou  know  it  is 
not.  You  have  a  right  to  ask  more,  you  have  a  right  to  ask  all  the  evidence 
that  the  State  can  bring  here. 

What  is  the  next?  Mrs.  Humphrey.  I  would  not  say,  gentlemen,  that 
Mrs.  Humphrey  has  told  a  wilful  falsehood  in  this  case;  she  has  done  what 
many  of  us  have  done  before,  she  has  forgotten  some  of  the  things  that  she 
saw;  her  demeanor  on  the  stand  warrants  me  in  saying  that  she  has  not  told 
you  any  deliberate  falsehood,  and  I  say,  although  her  testimony  was  not 
introduced  by  me,  I  do  not  believe  she  told  you  any  deliberate  falsehood. 
She  has  heard  Fannie  Mears  tell  what  she  saw,  heard  Jeff.  Cobb  tell  what  he 
saw,  heard  Mr.  Neill  Smith  tell  what  he  saw,  and  in  all  probability  she  has 
heard  what  J.  C.  Conoley  says  he  saw;  those  witnesses  that  the  State  have 
introduced, — mind  you,  they  don't  introduce  anybody  by  the  name  of  Cond- 
lej^  oh,  no,  that  is  too  different,  they  are  situated  too  far  from  that  side  of 
the  prosecution.  No,  but  Mr.  Smith  says  that  Mr.  J.  C.  Conoley  was  there 
with  him,  and  she  has  heard  all  those  neighbors  who  live  right  around  there 
in  a  thick  nest  on  the  road  tell  what  they  recollect  to  have  seen,  and  the 
poor  woman  has  a  vague  impression  that  she  heard  and  saw  what  she  said 
here.  Now,  I  will  read  you  from  her  Mill  Prong  testimony.  Mrs.  Hum- 
phrey says:  "  I  saw  a  man  pass  the  road,  was  a  black  man,  I  took  him  to  be 
a  negro;  was  tall  and  slender,  had  on  a  duster,  wore  glasses,  had  a  sack  on 
his  shoulder,  oil  cloth  over  it;  about  2  o'clock  when  he  passed  my  house  i]4 
miles  from  Shandon."  Now,  gentlemen,  that  was  her  testimonj-.  She  was 
asked  if  she  had  not  said  that  she  took  the  man  who  passed  there  within  eight 
feet  of  her — she  standing  at  her  gate  which  opens  right  out  into  the  public 
road — to  be  a  negro  ?  She  said  she  had  not  said  it.  It  shows,  gentlemen 
the  extent  to  which  the  public  mind  has  been  poisoned  by  this  Insurance 
Company;  it  shows  how  this  prosecution  has  exerted  itself  to  poison  the 
minds  of  even  the  good  women  of  this  country.  Mr.  Purcell  says  she  said 
it;  she  signed  it  there  in  her  own   handwriting,  and  said  she  said  it;  she 


68  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

signed  it  after  it  was  read  to  her;  she  said  it  after  she  had  sworn.  I  state 
that,  gentlemen,  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing  you  here  that  that  poor 
woman  has  told  a  falsehood,  she  has  made  a  mistake;  she  has  not  lied;  a  lie 
comes,  it  strikes  me,  from  a  soul  that  deliberately  makes  a  false  statement, 
knowing  it  to  be  false,  that  is  what  you  treat  as  a  lie.  When  a  person  says 
a  thing  and  thinks  he  or  she  is  right,  even  though  they  make  a  mistake, 
thev  are  not  criminal  to  me.  I  think  that  this  is  the  only  thing  that  caused 
her'testimony  to  be  what  it  was;  that  the  most  important  thing  that  that 
woman  testified  to  either  here  or  at  Mill  Prong,  or  belore  the  coroner  or  any- 
where else  where  she  may  have  ever  testified,  we  find  to  be  different  at  Mill 
Prong,  showing  you,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  dangerous  to  rely  upon  circum- 
stantial testimony- at  any  time,  becau.se  witues.ses  will  make  mistakes;  you 
are  relying  upon  your  recollection  of  little  incidents  that  at  the  time  really 
make  no  marked"^  impression  upon  vour  mind,  and  they  are  liable  to  be 
changed  by  hearing  what  other  people  say  they  saw  and  heard. 

So,  gentlemen,  I  know  that  you  cannot  say  that  that  man  did  not  look 
like  a  negro;  Mrs.  Humphrey  saids  at  Mill  Prong,  it  was  so;  she  said  that 
when  her  memorv  was  fresh;  she  said  it  on  the  7th  day  of  May,  1891;  Sim- 
eon Conolev  had""  only  been  dead  since  the  21st  of  April,  only  been  dead  a 
day  or  two  more  than  two  weeks,  when  she  said  that;  inside  of  three  weeks 
from  the  time  she  saw  this  man  she  made  this  testimony.  Then  the  lady 
has  been  mistaken  here;  her  memorv  is  at  fault. 

Is  that  all  ?  Oh,  no.  Mr.  Neill  Smith  is  next  introduced;  he  testifies 
that  on  that  day  of  the  21st  of  April,  about  2  o'clock— he  lives  two  miles  from 
Shandon— this  man  came  walking  from  down  the  road  towards  him,  he  and 
John  C.  Conoley  stood  talking  at  the  gate;  that  he  was  not  more  than  eight 
feet  away  from  him,  and  that  he  don't  recollect  that  he  had  any  beard  on  his 
face;  don't  recollect  the  beard  at  all,  but  saw  a  man  that  was  black,  a  man 
with  a  dove-colored  duster  on— the  only  witness  who  agreed  with  Capt.  Mc- 
Phail  that  he  saw  a  man  with  a  dove-colored  duster  on,— who  had  a  satchel 
strapped  across  his  shoulder;  that  he  carried  his  satchel  on  a  stick  over  his 
shoulder,  with  something  in  his  right  hand;  that  his  house  was  on  this  side 
of  the  road,  that  the  man  was  on  the  opposite  side  coming  from  Shandon 
with  his  right  side  towards  him,  that  he  had  on  a  broad-brimmed  hat,  that 
he  did  not  notice  his  hair,  and  he  does  not  sav  what  kind  of  pants  he  had  on  ;— 
and  while  we  are  speaking  about  the  pants,  Jeflf.  Cobb,  Charlotte  Dumas,  Capt. 
McPhail,  Fannie  Mears,  Henry  Smith,  nor  Mrs.  Humphrey,  neither  one  have 
said  anything  to  you  about  the  color  of  the  pants,  not  one  time,  gentlemen, 
they  don't  prove  the  color  of  the  pants  a  single  time  save  one.  They  prove 
that  the  man  with  a  black  face  had  on  dark  pants  by  Sallie  Wilkes,  and  that 
is  the  only  witness  who  tells  you  anything  about  the  color  of  the  pants.  So, 
then,  Mr.  Neill  Smith  differs  in  his  description  of  the  man  from  Mrs.  Hum- 
phrey. Now,  gentlemen,  if  that  man  was  passing  there  on  that  road  with  a 
beard  on— and  that  a  false  beard— have  any  of  you  ever  seen  a  false  beard  ? 
with  a  false  side-beard  on,  within  eight  feet  of  him,  do  you  think  he  could 
have  failed  to  notice  it?  I  will  venture  to  say  here  that  there  is  no  man  on 
this  jury  that  would  hesitate  to  say  that  if  a  man  were  to  pass  within  eight 
feet  of  him  with  a  false  side-beard  on,  with  a  on,  wig  or  with  a  false  full  beard  on 
his  face,  or  with  both  a  beard  and  wig  on,  and  his  face  painted  with  lamp- 
black, walking  right  in  the  broad  open  sunshine,  that  any  man  of  you  would 
say  that  man  could  not  go  bv  you  without  vour  delecting  the  imper- 
fection of  his  disgui.se,  and  I'think  you  would  say  furthermore,  if  that 
man  expected  to  go  about  that  way  he  was  a  fool,  and  I  will  agree  with 
you  in  both  in.stances;  so,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  iact  that 
Mr.  Neill  Smith  has  stated  that  that  man  seemed  different  from  any  man  who 
is  seen  by  any  of  the  witnesses  before  he  did  not  see  any  side-beard;  did  not 
notice  an v  beard  at  all;  well,  he  noticed  a  dark  man  walking  along  with  a 
bundle  .strapped  across  his  shoulder;  could  not  tell  you  about  his  hat  any 
more  than  that  the  man  ju.st  had  on  a  hat.  Mr.  Smith  tells  you  thai  the 
defendant  here  had  lived  there  in  his  country  until  Ihe  time  he  had  grown 
up  to  be  a  good-sized  boy;  that  he  had  not  seen  him  many  times  since  then, 
don't   say  positively  he  has  seen  him  at  all;  that  he  knew  nothing  of  him 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  69 

since  he  left  the  country  where  he  lived,  but  that  he  will  say  this,  that  the 
man  who  passed  the  gate  was  a  medium-sized  man,  about  the  same  size  as 
the  defendant,  D.  A.  McDougald.  That  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Neill  Smith. 
Now,  gentlemen,  call  to  your  recollection  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Smith  and  I 
will  ask  you  this  question:  Did  Neill  Smith  tell  you  here  one  time  that 
the  man  he  saw  there,  and  of  whom  he  spoke  in  this  court-room,  was  the  de- 
teudant,  U.  A.  McDougald?  Not  one  time  did  he  say  so;  he  said  he  was  a 
man  about  the  same  size  as  he — a  medium  size.  Does  he  tell  you  anything 
peculiar  on  the  knuckle?  Does  he  tell  30U  anything  about  the  way  he  holds 
his  shoulder?  Anything  about  how  he  carried  his  arm?  Anything  about 
the  proportion  of  his  body  ?  No.  Does  he  .say,  gentlemen,  that  a  view  of 
the  man's  face  reminded  him  of  the  lace  of  this  prisoner?  No,  he  did  not 
say  so.  Will  you  say  that  it  was  .so,  when  Neill  Smith  won't  say  it?  I 
think  not,  nay,  1  know  not. 

Is  that  all?  They  say,  "We  have  it  now  for  certain;  why  we  have  a 
negro  over  here,  John  Conoley,  colored,  who  has  seen  a  man  blacker  than 
he."  Now,  he  is  a  wonderful  man;  I  will  admit  that  they  have  the  right  to 
crow  over  John,  just  a  little  Int;  John  Conoley  hqis  seen  a  man  blacker  than 
he  was,  that  shone  or  glistened  nior.  than  John  did;  "  why,  gentlemen,  I  have 
seen  a  man  that  was  different  from  any  of  them  that  testified  yet;  diflerent 
from  Mr.  Smith's  man  and  all  the  others  all  the  way  back  to  Shandon;  t 
have  seen  an  entirely  different  man;  I  have  .seen  a  man  with  a  full  beard  on, 
as  you  heard  him  tell  here  in  this  courtroom,  a  long  full  beard;"  no  other 
witness  has  so  described  that  beard;  further  he  says  and  he  used  the.se  words, 
"1  saw  a  pack  tied  on  to  his  bteast;"  now  those  are  the  words;  what  he 
meant  by  them  is  for  you  to  saj-,  not  me;  I  suppose  he  meant  a  pack  tied  on 
to  his  back  across  his  breast.  He  stopped  and  asked  him  how  far  to  the 
Fayetteville  road.  "I  told  him  as  near  as  I  could."  "  Will  your  dog  bite?  " 
"  No,  boss,  he  won't  bite."  But  he  could  not  see  him  very  distinctly  and  he 
could  not  say  who  he  was,  and  he  does  not  say  that  that  man  was  a  white 
man  blacked,  nor  does  he  say  the  man  that  he  saw  was  the  defendant,  D.  A. 
McDougald.  Will  you  sa^-  more  than  he  said;  will  you  say  he  saw  more 
than  he  says  he  saw?  No,  gentlemen,  no,  the  State  of  North  Carolina  wants 
you  to  say  the  defendant  was  the  man  that  John  Conoley  saw;  they  have  not 
proved  it  to  youj  it  is  their  duty,  and  I  believe  you  will  demand  it  before  you 
steep  your  hands  in  the  blood  of  a  man  as  pure  and  honest  as  this  defend- 
ant. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  sorry  that  I  am  called  on  to  comment  upon  the 
testimony  of  Miss  Wilkes;  not  for  any  fault  in  the  poor  girl  herself;  no, 
Sal  he  is  not  the  Wilkes  that  has  gone  over  the  country  following  Daniels, 
the  Insurance  man  around;  not  Sallie,  but  Sallie's  daddy.  I  must  say,  gen- 
tlemen, that  her  testimony  was  different  here  in  this  court,  from  what  it  was 
at  Mill  Prong;  it  was  different,  the  girl  has  contradicted  herself.  I  don't 
blame  her,  ah,  no;  I  don't  do  that;  but  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  I  condemn 
that  father;  I  charge  him,  not  only  with  having  carried,  led  and  guided  Mr. 
Daniels,  the  Insurance  Agent,  around  through  that  country,  but,  further- 
more, that  he,  for  reasons  that  he  knows  of  and  that  we  do  not,  has  tam- 
pered with  the  evidence  of  his  daughter.  I  charge  him — for  I  believe  it  with 
my  whole  soul.  Tell  me  that  that  girl  would  change  her  testimony  without 
some  cause!  Does  she  change  it  in  any  immaterial  respect  ?  No.  Wh)-,  gen- 
tlemen, she  changes  it  in  its  mo.st  important  feature;  the  change  she  makes 
makes  her  testimony  different  from  what  she  has  ever  told,  and  I  ask  you  if 
1  have  not  a  right,  if  you  must  not  suspect,  that  that  father  who  rode  that 
Insurance  Agent  over  that  country,  or  the  Insurance  Agent  himself  went 
with  the  father  and  talked  to  this  girl  until  they  have  befogged  her  recollec- 
tion about  the  matter;  until  they  have  gotten  her  to  take  their  recollection 
about  ihis,  and  their  statements  about  what  she  saw.  Oh,  gentlemen,  it 
must  be  that;  it  must  be,  for  if  it  is  not  that,  she  has  not  told  the  truth.  Let 
Ub  make  it  that  and  not  the  other  fur  the  sake  of  the  girl;  for  her  sake  let  us 
do  iL;  1  ask  that  construction  to  be  placed  upon  the  testimony-,  because  it  is 
reasonable.  Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  would  not  the  New  York  Mutual 
L,iie  Insurance  Company  tamper  with  a  witness,   when  it  would  walk  here 


10  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

into  your  court-house  and  ask  you  to  hang  a  man  for  some  $5,000?  I  say 
that  we  have  a  right  to  suspect  John  Wilkes,  the  father  of  this  girl,  Sallie 
Wilkes,  that  he  has  been  talking  and  saying  things  to  this  man  Daniels  that 
he  don't  want  3'ou  to  know  of;  and  for  this  reason,  we  have  a  right  to  sus- 

Eect  him,  because  he  told  you  he  did  not  go  anywhere  with  Daniels,  because 
e  told  you,  gentlemen,  that  he  did'not  know  anything  about  the  man  who 
came  to  his  house  one  time,  because  he  told  you  that  he  never  talked  with 
an  insurance  agent  that  he  knew  of.  Tell  me  that  this  man  Wilkes  would 
lead  a  man  over  there  to  the  house  whose  people  are  bowed  in  mourning 
over  the  son  who  has  been  so  foully  murdered,  and  not  know  who  he  was! 
Would  he  be  leading  there  a  stranger,  the  purpose  of  whose  visit  he  was  in 
total  ignorance? — and  when  you  tell  it  to  me,  I  will  tell  you  that  the  man 
who  would  do  that  can  find  no  meaner  man  than  he.     It  is  true. 

John  Wilkes,  when  he  told  you  here  that  he  did  not  know  that  insur- 
ance man;  that  he  had  not  had  any  talk  with  him,  but  that  he  had  been  to 
his  house,  did  not  tell  you  the  truth.  You  must  be  satisfied  of  this;  and  can 
you  fail  to  be  ?  let  us  see  whether  you  can  or  not.  Eddie  Conoley  says  it 
was  so.  John  Wilkes  came  back  upon  the  stand;  he  does  not  for  one  instant 
say  he  did  not  go  over  to  Efl&e  Conoley' s  house.  Now,  I  ask  y©u,  who  would 
tell  the  truth  the  quickest,  a  man  who  had  been  associating  with  Daniels, 
who  had  been  leading  him  over  the  community,  who  came  here  into  this 
court  and  allowed  his  daughter  to  tell  a  different  story  from  what  she  told 
when  she  was  formerly  sworn  in  the  trial  and  investigation  of  this  matter, 
after  Mr.  Daniels  had  been  to  his  house,  after  he  had  taken  his  visit  over 
the  community,  or  this  old  lady,  who,  gentlemen,  totters  over  the  grave  that 
is  before  her?  Who  would  tell  you  the  truth?  Who  do  j^ou  believe ?  Oh, 
gentlemen,  you  must  believe  EflS^e  Conoley,  you  can  not  fail  to  do  it.  I  tell 
you  I  will  believe  her,  aye,  I  believe  her  as  much  as  I  believe  that  there  is  a 
God  that  rules  this  earth.  I  believe  her  as  firmly  and  sincerely  in  what  she 
said  here  in  this  cause  as  I  believe  in  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God  Al- 
mighty. I  belive  her;  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  believe  her,  none; 
she  has  been  here  86  years  full  of  trouble;  32  stricken  with  affliction,  10  or  12 
years  confined  to  her  chair,  unable  to  walk  and  attend  to  her  home  wants. 
If  we  have  a  right  to  think  anything  from  these  facts,  gentlemen,  we  must 
think  that  the  bed  of  sickness  on  which  we  have  all  seen  her  during  this 
trial,  if  not  the  last  that  she  will  be  called  to  suffer  upon,  is  near  it;  that  she 
will  not  be  called  on  to  endure  much  more  of  the  trouble  that  has  been  hers 
in  this  life;  that  she  will  not  be  called  upon  in  any  w^ay  or  at  any  time  more 
solmnly  to  speak  the  truth  than  she  has  been  in  this  trial.  Tell  me  that  that 
old  woman  could  be  induced  to  come  here  and  prove  so  false  to  the  memory 
of  that  boy  that  she  has  lying  in  the  grave,  stricken  by  the  hand  of  an  assas- 
sin, as  to  wilfully  undertake  to  shield  the  man  who  robbed  her  of  the  boy 
she  loved  from  the  punishment  that  the  law  would  inflict  upon  him!  I  tell 
you  that  if  that  were  so,  I  would  believe  no  more  in  the  honesty  of  mankind, 
and  I  would  never  believe  in  the  truth  of  words  that  fell  from  mortal  lips, 
never;  never. 

Gentlemen,  what  does  she  tell  you  ?  She  tells  you  that  whoever  may 
have  been  the  man  that  Sallie  Wilkes  saw,  whoever  may  have  been  the  man 
that  John  Conoley,  col.,  and  all  the  other  witnesses,  from  John  Conoley  back 
to  Shandon,  saw,  that  it  was  not  D.  A.  McDougald  that  robbed  her  of  her 
boy,  and  wrung  her  old  heart,  already  bowed  down  with  age  and  sorrow 
from  many  afflictions  and  troubles  before  this.  No,  she  says,  "gentlemen, 
it  was  not  D.  A.  McDougald;  why  D.  A.  McDougald  was  kind  to  me;  it  was 
not  he.  I  saw  the  man  who  laid  his  hand  so  heavily  upon  my  heart,  when 
he  snatched  from  the  bodj^  of  Simeon  Conoley  his  life.  I  saw  him,  gentle- 
men, whether  D.  B.  McLauchlin  says  so  or  not;  I  saw  that  man  and  I  saw 
him  about  10  feet  from  me  only,  on  a  night  that  was  as  bright  as  day;  and  I 
say  here  that  that  man  was  taller  than  Simeon  Conoley,  and  Simeon  is  much 
taller  than  Daniel  A.  McDougald.  It  was  not  Dan.  McDougald;  it  was  not 
his  voice  and  I  was  not  deaf  then."  Aye,  gentlemen,  you  heard  her  say  that 
she  was  not  deaf  on  the  night  in  question.  "I  was  not  deaf  until  four  or 
five  weeks  ago,  when  I  took  this  cold,  and  I  say  the  voice  that  called  was 
not  Dan's  voice;  I  saw  the  bod}'  and  it  was  not  his  shape." 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  71 

Do  you  believe  that  T.  E.  Phillips  told  the  truth  here?  If  you  do  you 
believe  more  than  I  do;  you  believe  more  than  any  man,  I  venture  to  say, 
outside  of  sympathizers  with  the  Insurance  Company  who  stands  upon  the 
Court  House  floor.  Do  you  believe  an  extra  train  ran,  as  testified  to  by 
T.  E.  Phillips,  on  the  morning  of  the  21st?  You  dare  not  believe  it.  Now, 
why?  Because  the  book  of  the  record  of  the  trains  that  should  have 
recorded  it,  that  would  have  recorded  it,  says  it  did  not  run;  because 
the  master  mechanic  of  the  Railroad  shops  says  that  T.  E.  Phillips,  accor- 
ding to  his  record,  worked  in  the  shop  that  day;  and  of  all  the  people  who 
live  along  the  line  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R'y,  from  Maxton  here  and  from 
here  to  Maxton,  T.  E.  Phillips  is  the  only  man  who  is  willing,  or  whom  the 
State  or  this  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  can  get  to  come  here  and  say 
that  those  books  have  lied.  He  is  the  only  man  who  will  come  here  and 
tell  you  that  that  train  did  run  on  the  21st.  Why,  gentlemen,  what  has  be- 
come of  the  agents  all  along  the  line  of  the  road?  If  it  ran  could  not  they 
prove  it?  T.  E.  Phillips  was  not  safe  with  the  death  of  his  conductor.  If 
the  old  man  had  been  alive  it  would  not  do  to  have  told  that  the  extra  ran, 
because  the  conductor  would  have  told  different.  With  the  poor  man  lying 
out  in  his  grave  he  thought  he  could  come  here  and  tell  you,  and  he  has 
told  it,  but  it  won't  go.  Oh,  no.  It  won't  go.  That  train  did  not  run;  that 
conductor  who  went  out  there  would  have  registered  as  the  rules  of  this  rail- 
road require.  It  was  his  duty  to  do  it;  he  was  following  a  ver>'  dangerous 
rule  if  he  did  not.  If  he  had  not  registered,  would  not  the  engineer  have 
registered  that  train  as  it  was  his  duty  to  do,  and  if  the  engineer  and  con- 
ductor had  both  forgotten  it,  would  not  the  operator  have  recorded  the  time 
forthetrain's  leaving  and  the  arrival  ol  the  train  ?  Ah,  gentlemen,  is  it  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  all  three  of  these  men  would  have  failed  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  duty,  would  have  violated  a  strict  rule  and  a  rule  that  would 
entail  danger  to  the  public  by  its  violation  ?  I  say  you  must  believe  that 
these  men  would  have  violated  that  rule,  or  3'ou  must  say  that  T.  E.  Phillips 
has  told  what  was  not  so,  or  he  has  made  a  most  fearful  mistake  in  this  case, 
a  most  fearful  one, — one  that  I  venture  to  say  no  other  man  would  ever  make, 
no  man  here;  and  if  he  has  made  that  mistake,  if  he  can  make  .so  great  a 
mistake  as  this,  if  you  can  presume  that  for  him,  why  then,  gentlemen, 
may  you  not  presume  with  equal  reason  and  fairness  to  the  evidence  that  all 
of  these  witnesses  are  mistaken  in  their  recollection  of  persons,  dates  and 
places;  it  is  just  as  reasonable. 

Then,  gentlemen,  T.  E.  Phillips  and  the  extra  train  is  the  backbone  in 
this  matter;  I  say  it  is  the  backbone  and  without  it  they  can  not  get  along. 
Now,  why?  For  this  reason:  T.  E.  Phillips  tells  you  that  he  saw  the  same 
man  at  the  water  tank  at  Maxton  that  Tom  Smith  sa\'S  he  saw,  that  Lizzie 
McCoy  says  she  saw;  now,  if  T.  E.  Phillips  did  not  see  that  man;  if 
the  evidence  here  has  shown  to  you  that  T.  E.  Phillips  is  mistaken, 
or  has  told  a  falsehood,  then  I  say  that  we  have  the  right  to  argue  to 
you  that  those  others  are  equally  mistaken.  That  is  what  they  say, 
Tom  Smith  says  he  saw  him,  right  there  at  the  tank  at  the  same 
place  that  Lizzie  McCoy  saw  him;  then  T.  E.  Phillips  .says  he  saw  him 
sitting  at  the  tank,  on  the  same  sill  right  there  at  the  crossing;  now  if  T.  E. 
Phillips  is  mistaken,  as  badly  as  he  was  mistaken — to  sa\'  mistaken  is  to 
show  your  charitable  disposition — if  he  was  mistaken,  then  so  are  the 
others,  because  they  say  this  man  whom  they  call  McDougald  was  in  the  same 
place  within  a  few  minutes  of  the  same  time,  and  was  there  on  the  same  day. 
Now,  if  one  of  them  here  is  shown,  to  you  to  have  stated  this  matter  falsely, 
I  ask  you  if  we  have  not  a  right  to  ask  you  to  sav'  that  the  others  have  stated 
it  falsely,  and  particularly  so,  when  they  come  here  and  bring  Lizzie  McCoy, 
a  partner  of  T.  E.  Phillips  in  this  swearing,  who  swears  to  the  same  place 
and  the  same  morning,  and  Tom  Smith  who  swears  to  the  same  place  and 
morning?  We  believe  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  show  them  to  be  either 
of  good  character,  above  suspicion,  bias  or  mistake  in  testimony,  or  else 
you  reject  it  along  with  T.  E.  Phillips.  Is  not  that  fair?  God  knows  I 
would  not  ask  you  to  do  anything  wrong,  but  I  believe  I  have  a  right  to  ask 
you  to  reject  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses  who  put  D.  A.  McDougald, 


72  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

or  this  man,  whoever  he  was,  at  the  tank  at  Maxton,  at  the  same  place  on 
that  tank,  on  the  same  sill  on  the  same  morning  and  within  a  minute  or 
two  of  the  same  time.  I  say,  when  you  laj-  aside  one  of  them,  the  others 
must  lie  in  the  same  bed.  Is  it  not  fair  and  right  ?  I  believe  before  high 
heaven  it  is  right. 

Is  that  all.-*  Then,  gentlemen,  what  does  Mr.  Cole  say.'*  Why,  Mr. 
Cole  says  that  there  was  a  man  there;  no  doubt,  gentlemen,  but  what  there 
was  a  man  talking  to  Mr.  Cole;  it  was  the  same  morning  when  he  went  down 
to  the  tank  and  sat  down  on  that  same  old  sill,  and  that  he  saw  Tom  Smith, 
and  that  when  he  was  there  the  man  called  himself  MeDougald.  Now,  Mr. 
K.  H.  Cole  is  a  man  of  intelligence;  you  have  seen  him;  he  is  in  charge  of  a 
responsible  position;  he  is  section-master  on  a  railroad  that  is  much  traveled, 
that  has  a  large  freight  over  it,  as  we  all  know;  and  Cole  sajs  here  that  he 
can  look  at  this  defendant  and  that  he  will  say  to  this  jury,  "I  will  not 
swear  that  this  defendant  is  the  man  I  saw."  Now,  I  ask  you.  if  you  are 
going  to  demand  of  the  State  all  that  the  law  says  you  shall  demand  from 
the  State,  to  prove  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  that  man  was  D.  A.  Me- 
Dougald even  in  Maxton ;  prove  bej'ond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  ?  Now, 
I  saj%  gentlemen,  that  it  was  not  he.  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  according  to 
this  testimony,  it  was  not  D.  A.  MeDougald,  because  if  it  had  been  he,  K. 
H.  Cole  would  have  recollected  him;  if  it  had  been,  K.  H.  Cole  would  not 
have  forgotten  him,  could  not  have  effaced  his  face  from  his  mind.  But  he 
says  this,  "considering  all  the  rumors  I  have  heard,  all  the  man3'  descrip- 
tions that  have  been  given  me  of  Mr.  MeDougald,  and  letting  them  come  in 
and  assist  m}'  recollection,  and  letting  those  rumors  form  part  of  my  recol- 
lection, then  I  would  say  that  the  defendant  does  look  something  like  the 
man  I  saw,  but  I  won't  swear  he  is  the  same  man."  Now,  you  are  not  called 
on  by  your  verdict,  gentlemen,  to  say  that  he  looked  like  D.  A.  MeDougald; 
you  are  called  on  to  say  that  he  is  D.  A.  MeDougald  or  is  not.  Now,  what 
IS  the  testimony  ?  Witnesses  say  that  that  man  looked  like  him,  but  I  won't 
swear  to  the  identity  of  the  two  men.  Does  that  testimony  satisfy  you  suf- 
ficiently for  you  to  come  in  here  and  on  your  oath  say  that  it  was  the  same 
man  ?  Now,  gentlemen,  that  was  not  D.  A.  MeDougald;  if  Dugald  E.  Mc- 
Nair  has  told  you  the  truth,  that  was  not  D.  A.  MeDougald.  Why  ?  Be- 
cause K.  H.  Cole  tells  you  that  it  was  7  o'clock  that  he  saw  this  man  up 
there  where  he  was,  at  this  section-house.  Dugald  McNair  said  he  got  to 
Alma  at  7.10  that  morning;  that  is  his  testimony;  if  it  is  not,  let  him  correct 
me,  let  any  man  correct  me.  The  counsel  for  the  State  has  said  it  was 
two  and  a-quarter  miles  from  Alma  to  the  water-tank,  to  the  place 
where  K.  H.  Cole  was.  Yes,  gentlemen,  it  may  be  two  and  a-quarter 
miles  off  with  the  town  of  Maxton  between  them.  How  in  the  name  of 
heaven  could  he  be  with  Cole  at  7  o'clock  when  he  was  at  Alma  at 
7.10?  Now,  I  ask  you  this  question,  j'ou  can  answer  it  upon  the 
evidence  and  answer  fully  and  satisfactorily.  Is  there  a  mortal  man 
•who  came  here  for  the  State  and  swore  that  MeDougald  did  not  go  to 
Maxton  on  the  morning  of  the  21st?  Not  one;  and  Archie  Cottingham  said 
he  went  to  Maxton;  he  knows,  but  he  did  not  say  he  did  not  go  to  Alma; 
and  Luther  McCormick  says  he  went  to  Maxton ;  that  he  saw  him  there  and 
that  he  talked  with  him,  and  that  he  talked  to  him  about  what  time  the 
Fayetteville  train  left,  but  he  did  not  say  he  did  not  get  on  that  train  and 
go  to  Alma.  Where  are  the  other  passengers  that  went  to  Alma  ?  There 
are  none.  The  State  has  actually  proved  it  for  us;  have  proved  the  testi- 
mony of  this  honest  man,  against  whose  character  they  could  not,  even  with 
their  detective  Daniels,  produce  a  man  to  say  he  was  a  bad  man.  That 
report  shows,  gentlemen,  that  no  man  went  to  Alma  that  day  who  paid  his 
fare.  Dougald  McNair  says  he  passed  Dan.  MeDougald;  that  he  is  a  patron 
of  the  road;  a  christian  gentleman,  liked  his  company,  and  he  passed  him  as 
a  kindness  that  morning  to  Alma;  they  were  old  friends.  He  is  not  the  first 
conductor  having  done  that.  Then,  gentlemen,  I  say  that  until  they 
bring  you  here  somebody  who  says  that  that  man  did  not  go  to  Alma,  you 
must  believe  this  positive  evidence  that  he  did  go  to  Alma.  Dugald  is  not 
unsupported.     No.     He  has  brought  you  here  his  train  man,  a  man  working 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  73 

on  the  train  with  him,  and  that  man  tells  you  that  Dan.  McDougald  did  go 
to  Alma,  and  that  he  went  there  on  the  morning  of  the  21st;  then,  gentle- 
men, if  he  went  there  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  and  got  there  at  7.10,  he 
was  not  the  man  who  talked  to  K.  H.  Cole  at  7  o'clock,  up  there  where  he 
was  working  at  the  section-house.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  can  not  be  gotten 
over;  have  I  not  repeated  the  evidence  correctl}'  ?  If  I  have  not,  I  have  made 
the  biggest  mistake  I  have  ever  made,  because  I  have  sat  here  and  listened, 
and  I  thought — and  I  was  struck  with  the  thought — oh,  how  the  State  of 
North  Carolina  and  that  Insurance  Companj-,  infernal  thing  that  it  is,  is  tri- 
fling with  the  life  of  this  man  !  What  wrong  it  would  do  to  save  the  sum  of 
$5,000. 

I  knew,  gentlemen,  that  that  man  who  talked  to  K.  H.  Cole  at  7  o'clock 
in,  the  morning,  calling  himself  McDougald,  was  not  McDougald;  I  knew 
that  as  honest  a  man  as  ever  set  foot  upon  the  top  of  God's  earth,  D.  E.  Mc- 
Nair,  could  come  here  and  tell  where  D.  A.  McDougald  was  on  the  morning 
of  the  2ist  at  7:10  and  at  all  time  previous  to  7:10  back  to  6  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  and  the  State  would  not  let  him  do  it.  He  had  to  ask  the  defend- 
ant, or  the  defendant  went  to  him  and  asked  him  to  come  and  tell  you, 
through  his  attorneys;  his  attorneys  asked  him  to  do  it,  the  State  would 
not  let  him  do  it.  This  is  the  truth,  gentlemen.  Now,  is  that  right  for  the 
State?  Have  the}'  tried  to  help  you  say  whether  this  man  be  guilty  or  inno- 
cent, or  have  they  tried  to  steal  a  verdict  of  "  guilty  "  from  j-ou,  by  keeping 
awa}'  from  30U  evidence  that  the}-  could  have  put  before  you,  and  did  not  ? 
It  is  a  serious  charge  to  make  against  our  State;  it  is  serious  to  make  against 
that  soulless  corporation,  so  cruel  that  we  almost  feel  that  it  has  no  soul,  as 
it  is  said  not  to  have;  we  must  agree  that  it  would  stoop  to  an3'thing  to  save 
this  money  and  procure  conviction. 

[At  this  point  court  adjourned  to  meet  the  next  day,  November  27th, 
when  Mr.  Shaw  continued  as  follows:] 

Not  having  concluded  my  argument  previous  to  adjournment,  it  becomes 
ray  duty  to  again  appear  before  you  in  behalf  of  the  defence.  I  hope,  gen- 
tlemen, that  I  shall  not  tire  you;  that  you  will  bear  with  me  patiently, 
for  I  feel  that  I  have  a  great  duty  to  perform;  a  great  burden  is  laid  upon  me, 
and  I  know  that  you  hav-e  one;  I  know  that  you  feel  the  duty  that  is  laid 
upon  you.  My  only  purpose  here  in  speaking  to  you  in  behalf  of  the  de- 
fendant is  to  aid  3'ou,  if  possible,  in  coming  to  what  is  a  righteous  and 
proper  verdict  in  this  case;  and  before  proceeding  to  the  further  investiga- 
tion of  this  testimon3%  I  want  to  call  3'our  especial  attention  here  to  the 
opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  laid  down  in  the  State  vs.  Bracksville, 
taking  the  words  of  the  Court,  and  that  was  a  case  tried  exclusively  upon 
circumstantial  testimony,  and  the  Court  says  this:  "The  facts,  their  rela- 
tions, connections  and  combinations  should  be  natural,  reasonable,  clear  and 
satisfactor}';  when  such  evidence  is  relied  upon  to  convict,  it  should  be  clear, 
convincing  and  conclusive  in  its  connections  and  combinations,  excluding  all 
rational  doubt  as  to  the  prisoner's  guilt."  I  ask  j-ou,  gentlemen,  to  bear 
these  words  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  3'our  mind  in  the  further  investigation 
of  this  testimony,  for  I  claim  here  that  the  testimony  of  the  State,  not  onlv 
in  what  I  have  already  rehearsed  to  you  here,  but  in  what  I  can  show  here 
this  morning,  is  unreasonable;  that  it  is  unsatisfactory;  not  clear;  and  if  that 
be  so,  then  it  would  be  your  dut}'  to  return  a  verdict  of  "  not  guiltj'^  "  here 
in  this  case  as  to  the  charge,  showing  them  how  carefullj^  3'ou  must  scru- 
tinize this  testimonj-;  how  much  care  and  attention  you  must  pay  to  the 
words  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  laid  down  in  this  case,  the  last  case  decided 
by  them  on  circumstantial  evidence. 

I  believe,  gentlemen,  that  when  the  adjournment  took  place  yesterday 
that  I  was  speaking  to  you  of  the  impossibility  of  the  man  K.  H.  Cole  saw 
at  7  o'clock,  when  he  was  there  working  his  section  hands  upon  the  Cape 
Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley  Railway,  being  the  same  man  that  D.  E.  McNair  saw 
at  Alma  at  7:10.  I  think,  gentlemen,  that  I  had  showed  you  that  the  de- 
fendant was  the  man  who  went  to  Alma  with  D.  E.  McNair,  that  he  had  gone 
from  Laurinburg  to  Alma,  that  his  had  been  a  continuous  trip,  that  the  onlj- 
stop  that  was  made  in  the  trip  from  Laurinburg  to  Alma  was  a  little  stop 


74  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

that  was  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  freight  train  at  Maxton  for  the  pur- 
pose of  unloading  itself  of  freight  destined  for  that  point.  McNair  tells  you 
that  he  has  lived  in  Laurinburg  for  about  two  years;  that  the  balance  of  his 
life  he  spent  within  sight  of  Alma,  in  Robeson  County,  within  2%  miles  of 
Maxton.  Not  a  man  comes  here  from  the  home  where  that  boy  was  rai.sed, 
not  a  man  comes  here  from  Laurinburg  or  Maxton,  where  he  has  lived  for 
the  past  two  years,  to  tell  ^-ou  that  he  is  not  worth\-  of  your  full  credence. 
On  the  other  hand,  gentlemen,  the  defence  comes  here,  and  it  proves  to  you 
from  good  and  true  men  that  Dugald  McXair  is  a  man  of  good  character, 
and  that  30U  may  safely  believe  him  and  that  you  ought  to  believe  him.  I 
believe,  gentlemen,  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dugald  McNair  has  won  your  con- 
fidence and  respect,  and  that  j-ou  are  justified  in  reU'ing  upon  and  believing 
every  word  he  said;  and  if  that  be  true,  the  man  seen  by  Mr.  K.  H.  Cole  was 
not  b.  A.  McDougald,  and  we  must  not  be  surprised  that  he  won't  .stand  up 
here  in  this  court-room  and  swear  that  it  was  he.  We  must  be  glad  when 
this  testimony  is  brought  here  before  you.  we  must  be  glad  that  Mr.  Cole 
has  restrained  himself;  that  he  has  refu.sed  to  swear  that  D.  A.  McDougald 
was  the  man  he  saw  on  the  railroad;  and  if  Mr.  Cole  don't  swear  it,  do  you? 
Will  you  go  further  than  Mr.  Cole  has  gone?  He  won't  say,  when  he  has 
seen  the  man  and  talked  to  him  for  fifteen  raintes,  he  won't  say  an3'thing 
about  him.  Then,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Cole's  man  is  not  the  man,  Mr.  Cole's 
man  is  not  D.  A.  McDougald. 

There  is  another  reason.  Because  the  extra  did  not  run  that  day.  I  will 
not  talk  to  you  further  about  the  extra,  but  it  did  not  run;  and  because,  gen- 
tlemen, the  man  who  got  on  at  that  tank  and  who  shook  hands  and  talked 
with  Mr.  Rufus  DeVane  was  not  D.  A.  ]\IcDougald;  that  i.s  another  reason 
that  the  man  who  K.  H.  Cole  saw  was  not  D.  A.  McDougald.  And,  gentle- 
men, D.  A.  McDougald  was  not  seen  at  Red  Springs,  as  testified  toby  the 
man  who  was  on  the  extra,  because  that  man  nor  that  extra,  neither  one,  went 
to  Red  Springs  on  that  day;  no  mortal,  no  record,  nothing  can  be  brought 
here  that  tells  you  that  either  INIr.  Phillips  or  the  extra  were  at  Red  Springs 
on  this  day.  The  records  of  the  Railway  Company  says  it  was  not  ujx)n  the 
track  that  day,  and  the  State  says  it  has  acted  to  you  in  good  faith;  that  it 
has  held  to  you  a  clean  hand  in  this  transaction.  I  say  that  the  hand  that 
the  State  of  North  Carolina  has  held  to  you  in  this  transaction  is  blood- 
stained; it  is  not  clean  and  it  is  not  fair.  Rufus  DeVane  tells  you  that  extra 
did  not  run.  He  told  you  the  truth.  What  else  does  he  tell  5'ou  in  his  tes- 
timony? He  tells  you  that  on  that  morning  ot  the  21st,  as  he  went  from 
Wakulla,  on  the  freight  train  from  iMaxton,  there  was  a  man  there  and  he 
talked  to  him;  that  he  saw  him  stand  up  in  front  of  him;  looked  at  him; 
recollects  the  man  distinctly;  that  his  recollection  is  vivid,  and  what  does  he 
say  ?  He  says  this  man  does  not  resemble  the  man  he  saw,  and  that  he  does 
not  believe  it  is  the  same  man.  Is  not  that  his  testimony,  honestly,  exactly 
repeated  to  you?  He  does  not  believe  it  to  be  the  same  man.  Wh3^  Mr.  De- 
Vane ?  The  State  of  North  Carolina  and  this  Insurance  Company  ask  why  is 
not  it  the  same  man?  "  Why,  sir,  because  the  man  that  I  saw  on  that  freight 
train  was  taller  than  D.  A.  McDougald,  defendant  in  this  case,  because  the 
man  that  I  saw  on  that  freight  train  was  much  darker  complexioned  than 
this  defendant  is."  Have  you  any  further  doubts  in  regard  to  it?  Have 
you,  gentlemen  ?  If  you  can  have  an}'  doubt  in  j^our  mind  after  hearing  the 
testimony  of  these  railroad  men  who  tell  you  no  extra  ran,  after  hearing  that 
testimony  of  T.  E.  Phillips  swept  to  the  ground  from  a  respectable  stand- 
point, and  hear  Rufus  DeVane  sav  that  was  not  the  same  man,  you,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  must  sa^'  that  it  was  not  the  same  man;  it  was  not,  if 
human  testimony  can  be  believed. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  well  enough  to  say  here,  and  His  Honor  will  .so 
charge  you  I  apprehend,  it  is  the  law — it  is  not  incumbent  upon  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald to  account  for  him.self  on  the  da\-  of  the  2i.st  of  April,  either  in  the. 
morning,  afternoon  or  evening  It  is  not  incumbent  upon  him,  for  the  bur- 
den in  this  case  rests  upon  the  State — the  State  of  North  Carolina  has  the 
entire  burden  laid  upon  it.  The  law,  gentlemen,  lays  no  burden  upon  the 
Insurance  Companj^;  it  has  come  here  and  assumed  the  burden;  it  has  come 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  75 

here  and  said  that  it  will  raise  the  burden  that  is  laid  by  the  law  upon  our 
old  mother,  and  it  w'ill  say  to  the  State,  to  the  Jur^-,  that  the  defendant  is 
guilt}'.  I  saj'  it  is  the  dutjf  of  the  State  to  satisfy-  you  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  of  the  whereabouts  of  this  defendant,  not  his.  No  burden  rests  upon 
him,  none  whatever,  and  the  Court  will  .so  instruct  you.  It  is  not  incum- 
bent upon  him,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  introduce  one  line  of  testimony 
here  before  j'ou;  he  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  3-ou  are  satisfied  bej-ond 
a  reasonable  doubt  of  his  guilt.  So,  gentlemen,  I  say  that  this  testimony 
of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  is  unreasonable,  that  it  is  not  satisfactory- ; 
that  you  cannot  conclude  that  this  man  got  on  the  train  after  the  extra 
passed;  that  Phillips  was  in  Red  Springs  and  that  Rufus  DeVane  was  mis- 
taken. Now,  mind  you,  no  man  has  gone  far  enough  to  tell  you  the  height 
of  the  man  that  they  saw  get  on  that  train  save  Rufus  DeVane;  no  man  has 
told  30U  the  complexion  of  the  man  that  got  on  that  train  save  Rufus  De- 
Vane. You  must  believe  him;  he  talked  to  him;  he  saw  him,  and  he  is  a 
man  worth}'  of  b'ilief.  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  in  view  of  the  testimony  here 
brought  out  by  the  vState,  which  says  that  after  the  freight  train  had  pas.sed 
Alma  in  the  morning— and  I  invite  your  special  attention  now  to  the  sched- 
ule, it  is  correct — another  train  comes  from  Charlotte  at  12.50  in  the  da}-; 
that  is  the  testimony  of  Capt.  Welsh,  and  he  tells  you  that  another  train 
comes  besides  the  one  Dugald  McNair  was  upon  from  Charlotte,  and  that  is 
the  fast  mail  and  express  train — that  it  generally  runs  at  12.50;  then,  I  say, 
is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  defendant  went  from  Alma  to  Wil- 
mington upon  the  fast  mail  and  express?  They  talk  to  you  here,  gentle- 
men, about  opportunities;  did  he  not  have  an  opportunity  to  go  on  that 
train  ?  W^asn't  it  free  for  him  to  go  on  !  Had  not  he  as  much  right  to  go 
upon  it  as  anybod}-?  Have  they  brought  you  here  a  conductor  of  that  train 
to  prove  to  3'ou  that  D.  A.  McDougald  did  not  get  on  ?  If  they  have,  they 
have  done  with  him  like  they  have  done  with  some  other  witnesses,  they 
have  kept  him  aside.  Oh,  no,  they  would  not  put  that  conductor  on  the 
stand,  not  a  time,  but  they  have  brought  3'ou  the  conductor  who  came  back 
on  the  night  of  the  21st  from  Wilmington,  and  they  say  that  you  must  be 
satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  in  regard  to  this  matter  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Capt.  G.  P.  Welsh,  who  tells  you  he  don't  know  the  name  of  a  soul 
that  was  upon  his  train  that  night,  that  he  cannot  mention  the  name  of  one 
passenger;  that  he  don't  recollect  to  have  seen  Mr.  McDougald.  but  that  he 
don't  know  the  name  of  a  man.  Wh}-,  gentleman,  do  ^-ou  say  that  that 
testimou}'  satisfies  you  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  ?  Hav^e  the}-  brought  you 
here  the  registers  of  the  hotels  in  the  city  of  Wilmington  to  say  that  this 
man  did  not  register  there?  They  have  brought  you  nothing  except  the 
testimony  of  a  man  who  says  he  can  not  name  one  man  on  the  train  that 
night;  he  don't  recollect  seeing  Mr.  McDougald,  and  he  would  not  swear 
that  he  was  not  on  the  train.  If  you  would  ask  him  whether  you  were  upon 
the  train  that  night,  he  would  say,  "I  don't  recollect  seeing  you."  The 
State  would  have  said  then,  that  is  conclusive  proof  that  you  were  not  on. 
Then,  gentlemen,  I  say  that  such  proof  as  that  cannot  get  away  with  you. 

To  pass  on.  Let  us  look  about  the  black.  They  sa}^  INIcDougald  wasat 
Maxton  with  black  on  his  face.  Did  you  not  think,  when  they  told  you  of 
this  man  passing  through,  right  in  the  heart  of  a  town  of  a  thousand  inhab- 
itants, where  there  is  a  cotton  platform,  public,  right  down  between  the 
stores,  in  the  heart  of  the  stores,  in  the  business  part  of  the  town,  did  you 
not  expect  that  they  would  come  here  and  satisfy  you  by  an  overwhelming 
number  of  witnesses,  men  of  good  character,  old  and  tried  citizens;  I  a.sk 
you,  did  you  not  expect  that  they  would  bring  you  here  that  kind  of  testi- 
mony to  satisty  you  that  this  man  was  blacked,  that  he  had  black  on  his 
face?  Instead  of  that  what  do  they  bring?  They  bring  to  you  Herring,  a 
man  who  says  he  has  two  homes,  that  he  lives  six  and  a-half  days  at  one 
place,  and  about  half-a-day  he  is  in  Laurinburg;  a  man  who  told  you  that  he 
had  joined  the  Sunday  School  in  Laurinburg,  and  whom  an  officer  of  the 
Sunday  School  told  you  that  he  never  was  within  the  portal  of  the  School 
but  once;  and  he  is  the  only  man  who  tells  you  of  that  morning  when  'h  .*y 
say  D.  A.  McDougald  was  in  Maxton,  when  he  got  off  at  Alma,   and  was 


76  The  Trval  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

there  seen  by  n:any  people,  and  no  man  save  Herring  can  tell  j'ou  anything 
about  him.  Did  the  State  bring  Luther  Ivy  here  to  tell  you  so  ?  Oh,  no. 
They  knew  he  was  on  the  train.  They  knew  Capt.  Haddock  was  on 
the  train,  because  he  was  the  Conductor  that  morning.  The  State  did 
not  bring  him  here.  They  knew  that  he  talked  to  John  Sellers  across 
the  counter  in  that  'store,  but  they  did  not  bring  him  here.  They 
know  he  talked  to  W.  W.  McGirt,  as  good  a  man  as  there  is  in  your  com- 
munity, and  they  don't  bring  him  here.  Now,  who  do  the}'  bring?  Why, 
Herring.  Ah,  gentlemen,  he  is  a  herring,  yes,  and  a  well  dried  one,  too. 
And  what  does  Herring  say?  Wh3^  he  sa3'S  that  this  man  was  there  with 
black  upon  his  face,  so  plain  that  he  could  not  look  into  his  face  and  fail  to 
see  it;  that  is  his  testimony.  "Look  him  fully  in  the  face  and  you  are 
bound  to  see  it."  Furthermore,  he  says  that  his  movements  were  those  of 
a  man  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  stiff  and  feeble;  that  he  was  worn  and  tired 
looking,  travel  stained  and  weary  in  appearance;  that  he  was  muddy;  that 
he  was  not  the  same  man  he  had  seen  with  a  bright,  genteel,  gentlemanly 
appearance.  I  feel  sorry  for  Herring,  I  do,  and  I  hope  he  will  leave  off  even 
those  six  hours  in  Laurinburg  after  this.  Why,  what  is  his  position  here? 
He  stands  here  alone,  unsupported,  contradicted  by  the  conductor,  who  tells 
you  that  he  went  through  that  train  to  collect  tickets  and  fares,  and  that  he 
noticed  no  man  on  his  train  with  black  on  him.  Who,  I  ask  you,  must  in- 
spect the  countenances  of  men  more  closely  than  a  conductor?  He  mu,st 
see,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  who  it  is  that  got  on  at  every  station,  and.  in 
order  to  do  that,  he  must  recollect  the  face  of  the  man  who  got  on  at  every 
station  that  preceded  that  station  upon  the  line  of  travel.  He  would  have 
forgotten  it?  Oh,  no,  he  would  have  noticed  this  blacking  quicker  than  the 
friend. 

Why,  Capt.  Powers,  who  proves  his  character  here  by  scores  and  scores 
of  witnesses,  had  the  opportunity  to  have  seen  whether  MeDougald  was 
blacked  or  not.  Why,  gentlemen,  no  man  had  a  better  opportunity.  He 
squatted  down  upon  the  platform  there  in  front  of  the  depot,  and  this  man 
Powers  tells  you  that  if  there  had  been  any  black  on  his  face  he  would  have 
seen  it.  Is  that  all  ?  They  say  he  had  mud  on  his  boots.  What  does  Capt. 
Powers  say  ?  He  says  it  is  not  true;  he  says  his  feet  were  about  upon  a  level 
with  his  face,  that  he  had  every  opportunity  to  observe,  that  there  was  every 
reason  to  expect  that  his  feet,  if  they  were  muddy,  would  have  attracted  his 
attention,  because  such  was  not  his  usual  appearance.  Is  not  this  true? 
Yes. 

Now,  there  is  something  further  about  this  black,  and  I  want  to  call 
your  special  attention  to  it,  in  this  respect.  They  say  he  blacked.  Why  ? 
Because  he  bought  lampblack  trom  Mr.  Graham,  some  two  or  three  weeks 
previous  to  the  21st  of  April.  Now,  I  ask  you  this  question  :  Did  not  Mr. 
Graham  testify  here  that  Mr.  MeDougald  had  said  to  him  that  Mr.  Wicker 
had  asked  him  to  buy  that  lampblack  for  him  and  send  it  to  him  ?  Gentle- 
men, you  saw  Mr.  Wicker  brought  up  here  and  sworn  by  the  State  during 
the  trial  of  this  case.  You  saw  him  placed  here  upon  the  .stand.  Did  you 
hear  the  State  ask  him  one  single  time  whether  he  had  sent  for  lampblack  ? 
No,  you  did  not.  The  State  has  not  given  him  the  chance  to  speak  in  this 
courtroom.  Is  it  not  true?  Then,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  Mr.  Wicker 
won't  deny  it;  if  the  State  can't  get  Mr.  Wicker  to  deny  it,  why  was  not  the 
blacking  bought  and  sent  to  Mr.  Wicker  at  Rowland?  It  is  not  disproved; 
it  is  for  the  State  to  say  that  he  got  it  to  use.  There  is  another  matter,  too. 
What  became  of  the  blacking?  I  ask  you  what  became  of  the  blacking  that 
they  said  was  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge?  This  man  Daniels  got  it;  this 
New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  got  it;  went  to  old  John  Conoley  and  told 
him  to  give  it  to  him,  and  he  took  it  away.  Gentlemen,  this  Insurance 
Company  and  the  State  of  North  Carolina  are  in  possession  of  the  blacking; 
where  is  the  witness  to  prove  that  it  was  the  same  brand  of  blacking  as  that 
which  was  bought  from  Dr  Graham  ?  Not  here.  I  ask  you.  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  if  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  being  in  pos- 
session of  the  blacking  that  thev  say  vvas  used,  to  bring  this  blacking  and 
show  it  to  Dr.  Graham,  and  let  him  testify  whether  it  is  the  s  m.-  brand  of 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  77 

lampblack;  they  don't  do  that,  nor  have  they  the  face  to  do  it;  they  did  not  dare 
to  take  that  package  of  lampblack  and  show  it  to  Dr.  Graham,  for  if  they 
had,  honest  man  as  he  is,  he  would  have  said,  "it  is  not  the  mark  of  lamp- 
black I  sell."  Ah,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Daniels  has  figured  and  figured  well  on 
this  thing;  he  went  to  the  drug  store  of  Dr.  Graham;  he  saw  what  blacking 
it  was  that  was  used;  he  saw,  gentlemen,  what  kind  of  black  it  was  that  he 
got  from  John  Conoley;  he  knew  that  that  feature  of  the  case  was  driven  to 
the  wind  if  that  package  of  lampblack  was  brought  here  into  the  court  room; 
and  what  does  he  do?  He  deliberateh*  destroj'S  it;  he  puts  it  beyond  the 
power  of  any  man  to  bring  here,  and  says  to  Dr.  Graham  that  he  shall  iden- 
tify that  package  of  lampblack  if  he  can.  Is  that  the  fairness  of  our  good 
old  State  ?  No.  That  is  the  fairness  that  we  are  fed  with  by  this  money 
power  from  New  York;  that  is  where  that  kind  of  fairness  emanates  from; 
that  is  where  it  comes  from.  Was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  State.'  Yes.  Vas 
it  not  the  dut\'  of  this  murderous  corporation  to  come  here  and  prove  to  you 
that  the  package  of  lampblack  sold  by  Dr.  Graham  and  the  package  found 
at  John  Conoley's,  taken  by  that  detective,  was  the  same  kind  ?  I  sa}'  you 
have  a  right  to  censure  the  State  of  North  Carolina  for  not  bringing  you  the 
testimony  identifying,  at  least,  the  trade  marks  on  that  blacking,  or  even 
lor  not  bringing  the  blacking  here  and  let  Dr.  Graham  say,  and  not  take  an 
honest  man's  testimonj'  from  his  lips  and  wrest  it  from  him.  Is  it  not  their 
duty  to  come  here  and  explain  this  testimon}-  bj' the  testimony*  of  Charley 
Wicker  and  let  Charley  speak  ?  If  it  was  their  dutj',  they  failed.  They 
knew  it  would  be  a  good  thing  if  we  could  just  bring  Charlej'  Wicker  here 
to  prove  it,  prove  that  he  did  not  order  the  black  to  be  sent  to  him  at  Row- 
land; and  for  that  purpose  they  prepared  for  him  when  he  came;  they  said, 
"oh,  no,  we  won't  put  Mr.  Wicker  up;  we  won't  put  him  up."  Ah,  gentle- 
men, I  can  tell  you  when  you  see  a  lawj-er  in  charge  of  a  witness  in  posses- 
sion of  testimony'  refuse  to  put  the  testimony  up,  the  burden  being  upon 
him  in  the  trial  of  a  cause,  you  may  know  one  thing,  that  testimony 
don't  help  him;  you  may  know  one  thing,  that  the  testimony  cuts  the  wrong 
way,  and  it  is  so  here.  Is  it  not  trying  to  steal  a  verdict  here  from  j^ou 
unfairly  ? 

I  tell  3^ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  nothing  filled  me  with  greater  indigna- 
tion throughout  the  trial  of  this  cause  than  the  deliberate  refusal  on  the  part 
of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  to  bring  here  that  package  of  lampblack  which 
it  has,  which  it  don't  deny  having  in  its  possession,  and  show  it  to  Dr. 
Graham,  and  let  him  at  least  say  whether  he  sold  a  package  like  that  or  not. 

Is  that  all?  Ah.  no.  They  say  this  defendant  is  guilty,  that  you 
should  come  into  this  court  and  say,  "hang  him,  hang  him;  order  his  life 
to  be  taken  away  from  him,  because  of  the  clothes  found  at  Campbell's 
Bridge."  Are  you  going  to  do  It  ?  I  will  never  believe  it;  never.  Why? 
Because,  according  to  the  weight  of  the  testimoti}^  in  this  case — and  I 
believe  I  state  it  fairly  to  j'ou — Daniel  A.  McDougald  has  never  possessed  in  all 
his  life  clothes  to  correspond  with  the  clothes  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge. 
Tell  me  the  witness,  I  ask  you,  who  says  that  the  clothes  at  Campbell's 
Bridge  would  fit  D.  A.  McDougald,  that  the  pants  would  fit  him.  And  when 
I  ask  you  that  question  I  am  prepared  here  to  tell  you  that  Daniel  McKin- 
non,  witness  for  the  defense,  saN^s  he  has  been  clerking  for  eighteen  months; 
has  measured  men;  is  familiar  with  the  length  of  men,  and  tells  3'ou  here 
that  those  pants  would  not  fit  him,  and  that  tliev  were  too  small.  Is  it  not 
the  tr   ill 

Is  thit  all?  No,  it  is  not  all.  R.  D.  Phillips  tells  you  that  Daniel  A. 
McDougald  has  been  his  partner  for  six  years;  that  he  has  known  him  for 
thirteen;  that  thes'  have  been  iatiiuate  with  one  another;  that  the\'  see  <=^ach 
othei  a  dozen  times  a  day  when  the  defendant  is  at  home;  that  he  never  in 
all  his  life  saw  him  wear  a  pair  of  pants  that  followed  the  description  of  the 
pants  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge.  They  say  that  he  is  guilt}-  because  a 
duster  was  worn  by  the  man  who  j)assed  from  Shandon  out  towards  Simeon 
Conoley's  home.  Do  you  say  he  was  guilty  for  the  same  reason  ?  If  .so,  I 
ask  you,  when  was  th.'  time  he  wore  it  ?  They  sa}-  he  wore  it  in  a  disguise 
in  a  concert  at  Laurinburg.     Ah,  the  concert  business  is  shelved,  laid  away. 


78  The  Trial  of  B.  A.  MeDougald 

What  do  they  bring  j^ou  ?  Do  they  come  and  bring  you  witnesses  here  who 
would  know  what  kind  of  a  coat  was  worn  in  that  concert  ?  They  bring  you 
a  witness,  who  speaks  from  a  remembrance  of  his  attire,  to  tell  you  what 
was  worn,  and  thej'  have  two  witnesses  here  who  tell  you  that  their  recollec- 
tion is  that  the  defendant  wore  a  duster.  That,  gentlemen  of  the  jurj',  is 
the  testimon}'  on  the  part  of  the  State.  W.  DeB.  McEachern  comes  here, 
and  the  State  of  North  Carolina  saj^s  he  stands  above  reproach,  and  what 
did  he  say?  He  says,  "Why,  I  was  there  in  that  concert  with  D.  A.  Me- 
Dougald, I  held  the  coat  for  him  to  put  upon  his  back;  I  helped  put  the 
black  on  his  face;  I  disguised  him  in  the  concert;  I  helped  him  dress;  I 
helped  him  throughout  his  entire  attire  for  the  evening,  and  I  swear  to  you, 
gentleman,  that  that  coat  was  not  a  duster,  that  it  was  a  cut-awaj'  coat, 
turned  wrong  side  out."  Now,  gentlemen,  I  ask  you,  where  is  the  duster? 
What  does  R.  D.  Phillips  tell  you,  another  man  whose  character  is  admitted 
here  b}-  the  State  and  the  Insurance  Compan}^?  He  tells  you  that  he  wore 
the  duster  himself  that  was  u.sed  in  that  concert,  and  that  D.  A.  IMcDougald 
did  not.  That  is  his  testimony.  They  say,  convict  this  defendant;  steep 
your  hands  in  his  blood,  because  he  borrowed  a  wig  and  a  pair  of  side-whis- 
kers from  J.  C.  Robbins;  because  he  used  them  in  the  concert,  and  knew 
that  his  disguise  was  effective.  Why,  gentlemon.  it  is  not  the  truth;  he  did 
not  use  them;  he  has  never  worn  a  side-beard,  and  the  testimon}'  here  war- 
rants me  in  saying  it.  What  does  R.  D.  Phillips  say?  He  says,  "  I  wore 
the  same  beard  or  disguise  in  that  concert  that  D.  A  MeDougald  wore,"  and 
I  say  to  you,  it  was  a  beard  that  covered  his  whole  face,  and  of  an  iron-gray 
color.  What  do  you  do  with  Mr.  Phillips'  testimonj'?  Will  j^ou  believe  it 
or  reject  it?  I  do  not  believe  you  can  reject  it.  Some  one  else  tells  you  he 
dressed  the  man  and  it  was  a  full  beard.  They  tell  you  to  believe  here  that 
the  defendant  wore  a  wig  that  Jim  Robbins  loaned  him,  a  red,  Irish  wig,  and 
that  the  people  all  along  the  road  took  it  for  a  negro  wig.  I  want  to  ask  j^ou 
if  yon  would  ever  take  this  thing  (pointing  to  his  own  hair,  which  is  red)  for 
a  negro  wig.  I  think  not;  I  think,  gentlemen,  I  am  safe  on  that  score;  I 
don't  think  a  man  will  ever  tell  me  that  I  have  hair  like  a  negro.  I  ask  you 
here,  gentlemen  of  the  jur^',  if  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  the  State  of  North 
Carolina  to  show  you  how  that  wig  came  to  look  like  a  negro's  wig.  J.  C. 
Robbins  told  him  that  Dr.  Everington,  a  chemist,  in  town,  knew  how  to  dye 
these  things.  Dr.  Everington  has  been  upon  the  stand,  did  he  dare  to  say 
that  he  d3'ed  that  wig?  Not  one  time.  No  evidence  here  that  D.  A.  Me- 
Dougald ever  wore  a  side-beard;  no  evidence  that  he  ever  wore  a  red  wig. 
Bob  Phillips  saj'S  there  were  several  wigs  in  town;  that  in  the  concert  they 
both  acted  the  part  of  a  negro,  and  wore  kinky,  negro  hair,  and  of  Bob  Phil- 
lips' testimony  there  is  no  doubt  about. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  ask  you  which  is  the  most  reasonable  side  of  this 
blacking,  that  stated  here  by  the  defence,  or  that  by  the  State  and  this  In- 
surance Company  ?     Now  leave  that. 

The}'  turn  and  saj',  "ah,  well,  if  that  man  on  the  road,  disguised,  did 
not  have  a  duster  on;  did  not  have  on  a  frock-tailed  coat  turned  wrong  side 
out;  if  that  duster  was  not  a  frock-tailed  coat,  if  D.  A.  MeDougald  was  never 
seen  to  wear  that  duster;  if  the  pants  that  he  wore  in  the  concert  were  old 
blue  overalls,  still  we  saj^  convict  him;"  and  why?  Because  they  say  he 
poisoned  or  tried  to  poison  his  uncle  in  November  of  1890.  That  is  the  tes- 
timony they  want  to  bring  5'ou.  Is  it  so?  No,  not  much.  When  Dr.  Cur- 
rie,  a  man  I  like,  when  he  showed  here  to  this  Court  and  to  you  that  he  was 
unable  to  prove  his  ability  to  state  what  it  was  that  affected  that  man;  when 
he  showed  that  his  medical  advantages  had  been  too  limited  for  him  to  be 
quite  an  expert;  showed  that  he  had  gotten'his  diploma  at  Edinburgh,  in 
Robeson,  then  they  said,  "oh,  well,  we  do  not  claim  him  as  an  expert." 
No,  no,  he  is  not  an  expert;  get  down,  doctor,  get  out  of  the  way;  you,  doctor, 
make  way  there  for  Dr.  Prince;  JduU  him  down,  put  up  there  a  man  who 
was  readily  admitted  by  the  defence  to  be  a  man  of  skill  and  ability;  he 
comes  in  and  says  that  if  an  emetic  relieved  that  man  in  an  hour  and  a-half 
after  he  had  taken  the  substance  that  made  him  sick  it  would  not  have  been 
strychnine.     That  is  his  testimony;  he  says  that  an  emetic  after  half  an  hour 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  79 

or  an  hour's  time  would  not  have  relieved  the  man  if  he  had  taken  strych- 
nine; that  a  very  small  quantity  was  sufficient  to  kill  a  man,  and  tiiat  it  does 
its  work  in  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes'  time,  and  that  after  that  powder  has 
been  on  a  man's  stomach  for  an  hour's  time,  an  emetic  will  not  relieve'it. 
Why  ?  Because  the  effect  is  directly  upon  the  nervous  system,  because  it 
affects  immediately  the  spinal  cord.  Then,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  if  you  are 
to  believe  anything  John  Wilkes  said — and  I  don't  ask  you  to  believe  a  word 
he  says — because  I  tell  you,  before  high  Heaven,  I  do  not  believe  he  has  told 
the  truth;  he  has  looked  Daniels  in  the  eyes  too  many  times  to  come  here 
and  tell  the  truth,  and  I  expect  has  his  monc)^  in  his  pocket  too  much;  but 
I  saj^  if  you  will  believe  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Currie,  and  of  George  Currie, 
a  negro  bo}'  who  went  for  the  doctor,  then  you  must  say  that  it  had  been  an 
hour  and  a-half  or  two  hours  since  Simeon  Conoley  not  only  ate  the  candy, 
or  whatever  it  was  that  made  him  sick,  but  since  he  became  sick,  and  that 
when  Dr.  Currie  tells  you  positively  that  the  emetic  he  gave  him  relieved 
him.  Dr.  Prince  tells  you  that  if  it  did  relieve  him  it  was  not  strychnine. 
Dr.  Prince  tells  3'ou  furthermore,  "  I  say  it  could  not  have  been  strychnine  if 
relieved  by  an  emetic;  I  say  further,  that  it  might  have  been  an  attack  of 
lockjaw,  it  might  have  been  an  epileptic  attack;  it  might  have  been, 
although  not  probably  the  case,  it  might  have  been  a  severe  attack  of  indi- 
gestion; I  know  that  indigestion  will  cause  similar  attacks  on  the  part  of 
children,  and  it  may  cause  similar  attacks  pn  the  part  of  men,  although  I 
have  never  been  called  upon  professionally  to  attend  an  attack  of  that  kind." 
Now,  are  you  satisfied  here  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  that  man  ate 
strj-chnine?  And  they  go  on  and  tell  you,  why  of  counse  he  ate  strychnine; 
D.  A.  McDougald  intended  he  should  eat  it  and  die.  How,  after  he  had 
eaten  this  strychnine  that  was  placed  on  the  candy  and  he  found  that  he  had 
made  this  mistake  ?  In  order  to  aid  this  testimony  let  us  see,  gentlemen, 
what  you  would  have  done,  or  an\'  man  now  would  do,  who  innocently  gave 
any  person  anj-  article  of  food  that  made  him  sick,  and  that  he  presumed  or 
felt,  might  have  contained  some  poison.  I  ask  you  if  the  first  thing  you 
would  have  done,  feeling  the  innocence  of  your  soul  and  the  anxiety  to  re- 
lieve yourself  and  set  j-ourself  straight,  if  you  would  not  have  gone  to  your 
trusted  family  phj'sician,  and  complained  to  him  that  it  was  said  that  the 
candy  you  got  from  Everington's  drug  store  had  poison  on  it;  ask  him  to  go 
and  make  an  examination  of  the  candj'  for  you;  and  if  you  would  not  have 
gone  to  him  about  that  cand3^  and  carried  it  to  him  and  showed  it  to  him 
without  hesitation,  and  have  anxiously  investigated  this  matter?  That  is 
what  an  innocent  man  would  do.  Did  D.  A.  McDougald  do  any  more  ?  No. 
Did  he  stick  that  note  down  in  the  fire  and  say,  "I  will  not  investigate  that 
candy  business,  no  man  saw  me  give  it  to  Sim.  Conoley,  no  man  saw  Sim. 
Conoley  eat  the  candy,  who  can  prove  it  ?  I  am  a  respectable  man  and  I 
will  not  tell  on  m^'self."  On  the  contrary  his  action  is  honest,  fair  as  it  can 
be,  and  he  goes  and  he  makes  it  public  at  once;  he  asks  for  an  investigation 
— not  Sim.  Conoley,  Sim.  did  not  ask  for  it.  Dr.  Everington  did  not  ask  for 
it.  Who  asked  the  investigation  of  that  candy?  Why,  Daniel  A.  McDou- 
gald asked  it,  requested  it;  yes,  gentlemen,  I  reckon  paid  for  the  analysis. 
Then,  was  his  conduct  guilty  in  that  matter,  or  is  it  the  action  of  an  inno- 
cent man? 

Now,  Powell  Hill  is  a  boy  that  I  know,  and  I  feel  sorry  for  Powell ; 
Powell  just  don't  recollect  this  mitter  right;  I  will  tell  3'ou  why.  If  Powell 
tliLTc  h  icl  been  in  that  drug  store  on  that  day  ani  he  heard  Dr.  Prince  and 
Dr.  Everington  say  the  candy  which  is  upon  mv  shelf,  upon  investigation, 
shows  that  it  has  poison  in  it;  if  he  had  been  struck  with  any  action  on  the 
part  of  this  defendant  that  was  not  favorable  to  his  innocence,  to  his  entire 
innocence  in  tampering  with  that  candy,  what  was  the  first  thing  he  would 
have  said  ?  He  would  have  said,  "Doctor,  I  saw  Mr.  McDougald  around 
there  at  th-'  cand}'  bo.\.  mvself  this  morning,  he  stayed  there  a  mighty  Ion  g 
time,  and  I  don't  know,  but  I  believe  he  has  done  wrong."  Did  he  tell 
Jvverington  .so?  No,  he  did  not.  Dr.  Everington  has  been  upon  the  stand  , 
he  did  not  tell  you  that  Powell  Hill  had  ever  told  him  about  this,  and  I  as  k 
you  if  it  was  not  his  dut^'  to  tell  Everington  right  then  and  there?     Did  h  e 


80  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeBougald 

tell  Dr.  Prince  when  he  made  the  investigation  ?  No,  Powell  did  not  say 
that  then.  Powell  comes  here  to-day  to  tell  for  the  first  time  things  that  he 
saw,  things  that  he  heard.  He  was  busy  sweeping  the  floor,  and  talks  to 
you  about  what  he  saw  and  noticed;  a  careless  boy,  a  boy  who  confides  in 
the  defendant,  who  has  no  ground  or  reason  to  suspect  anything  unfair  from 
him,  don't  you  know  he  was  not  watching  him  with  any  watchful  eye  ? 

But  is  that  all?  No.  Have  they  showed  here  where  this  defendant 
bought  any  strychnine?  Have  they?  I  believe,  gentlemen,  it  is  the  law 
that  it  shall  be  recorded  upon  the  books  of  our  drug  stores  to  whom  strych- 
nine is  sold.  Some  poisons,  I  know,  are  required  to  be  recorded,  and  my 
recollection  is  that  this  is  one  of  them,  that  it  shall  be  recorded  to  whom  this 
poison  is  sold.  Now,  they  have  had  their  chance  to  look  at  Dr.  Everington's 
drug  store  books  and  the  drug  store  books  all  over  North  Carolina;  don't 
you  reckon  Daniels  has  done  it?  He  would  investigate  every  corner;  if  he 
would  go  and  terrify  these  women,  who  are  so  old,  some  of  them,  that  they 
are  tottering  upon  the  grave  itself,  don't  j-ou  know  be  did  not  fail  there?  De- 
tectives know  these  things.  Where  do  we  hear  of  strychnine  ?  Nowhere 
but  upon  the  shelves  of  Dr.  Everington's  drug  store,  upon  the  same  side 
that  the  candy  is  situated.  What  else?  We  hear  that  the  lid  to  the  box  is 
heavy,  and  that  the  box  is  open  and  ready  to  receive  any  particle  of  strych- 
nine or  other  matter  that  might  fall  down  into  it.  That  is  the  testimony. 
Now,  Dr.  Everington  does  not 'stand  here  disinterested — not  that  I  would 
cast  reflection  upon  the  Doctor — not  at  all;  but  would  the  Doctor  want  it  to 
appear  that  he  would  so  negligently  handle  that  deadly  poison  that  it  might 
get  into  cand}^  he  offered  for  sale  in  that  community.  Oh,  no;  he  would  uot 
do  that;  the  Doctor  must  defend  his  reputation  as  a  druggist.  I  ask  you  if 
the  State  of  North  Carolina  has  defended  the  reputation  of  Dr.  Everington's 
drug  store  ?  Has  -a  man  told  you  that  ?  Not  one;  on  the  contrary,  you  have 
it  from  the  mouth  of  Hector  McLean,  as  honest  a  farmer  as  ever  drew  breath; 
you  have  it  from  his  mouth,  here,  that  he  had  gone  to  Dr.  Everington's  drug 
store  and  bought  alum  to  give  to  one  of  his  little  children,  and  that  in  the 
place  of  getting  alum,  he  got  borax.  Now,  I  ask  you,  is  Dr.  Everington,  as  a 
druggist,  as  a  careful,  accurate  druggist,  above  reproach  ?  No,  he  is  not;  he 
does  not  stand  above  reproach. 

Now,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  tell  you  about  that  poison,  to  show 
you  the  reputation  of  that  druggist;  mind  you,  there  is  no  burden  placed 
upon  the  defendant  in  this  cause,  nowhere,  and  so  his  Honor  will  tell  you. 
Is  that  all  ?  Why,  there  is  no  more  reason  for  his  poisoning  than  for  his 
killing;  I  won't  go  over  that,  but  since  we  mention  motive,  1  will  mention 
this ;  we  have  heard  of  one  motive  in  this  case:  they  have  it  positively  and  from 
the  mouth  of  a  State's  witness  that  Simeon  Conoley's  life  has  been  threat- 
ened, by  whom  ?  Not  by  this  defendant,  but  by  Millard  F.  Moore,  wretched 
man  that  he  is,  a  man  who  has  looked  at  the  walls  of  many  a  prison;  by 
him,  by  that  man,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  who  stood  within  a  hundred  yards 
of  the  house  of  Simeon  Conoley  and  shot  from  ambush  Joe  Lomax,  because 
he  was  upon  the  land  that  he  and  Simeon  Conoley  both  claimed;  because  he 
was  upon  the  land  that  Millard  had  a  frajidulent  deed  for,  and  which 
Simeon  Conoley  denied  the  execution  of.  Where  is  the  disposition  to  kill  ? 
Tell  me  Millard  Moore  does  not  possess  it;  if  you  do,  you  must  show  me 
that  he  did  not  shoot  Joe  Lomax;  you  must  show  me  that  his  Honor  and  the 
court  and  the  jury  of  Robeson  county  were  wrong  when  they  convicted  him 
for  shooting  Joe  Lomax;  if  you  show  me  that  he  is  too  good  to  shoot,  if  you 
show  me  here  that  he  would  not  have  done  that,  what  profit  was  it  for  him 
to  shoot  that  poor  negro?  Did  that  dispose  of  the  evidence  that  said  that 
his  deed  was  fraudulent;  and  because  he  was  on  that  land  he  loved  and  hun- 
gered for  so  greedily,  if  he  would  shoot  this  man  for  merely  putting  his  foot 
upon  that  land,  I  ask  you  if  he  would  not  willingly  seal  the  lips  of  the  man 
who  said,  "Millard  Moore,  your  deed  is  a  lie;  I  never  executed  it;  it  is  a 
fraud,  you  are  trying  to  steal  from  me  the  land  that  is  mine."  Would  not 
he  willingly  see  him  laid  low  in  cold  death  ? 

But  they  say  it  was  made  up  between  Sim.  and  Millard  about  three 
years  ago.     Not  so;  Joe  Eomax,  according  to  his  testimony,  was  only  shot 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  81 

about  twelve  nionth.s  ago.  The  threat  to  Sim.  Conolej^  that  if  he  or  any  of 
his,  meaning  this  sister,  this  little  boy,  this  aged  and  infirm  old  mother, 
who  sat  trembling  before  you  to  tell  her  evidence  in  this  case,  "  if  any  of  3^ou, 
if  you  or  any  of  yours  are  caught  by  me  on  that  land  I  will  fill  you  with  buck- 
shot." "Is  that  making  a  thing  up. ^  If  it  is,  it  is  rather  a  war-like  way 
of  making  a  thing  up;  not  much  hand-shaking. 

Then,  I  say,  whom  do  we  find  walking  hand  in  hand  here  to  claim  the 
life  of  Daniel  A.  McDougald  ?  Millard  Moore  and  the  New  York  Life  Insu- 
rance Company.  A  pretty  couple,  is  it  not.''  Millard,  the  villain,  who  shot 
from  ambush  a  poor  negro  who  never  had  done  him  wrong,  and  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  who  claims  the  life  of  one  of  our 
fairest  Southern  boys  is  not  worth  j?5,ooo.  Have  they  done  more  ?  Oh,  yes, 
Daniels  and  Millard  Moore  have  scoured  Robeson  county;  it  is  in  evidence. 
Who  supervised  the  searching  of  the  house  of  this  poor  old  woman  ?  Millard 
Moore.  Who  supervised  the  searching  of  the  house  of  old  John  Conoley  there .-" 
Millard  Moore.  Who,  gentlemen,  first  said  D.  A.  McDougald  did  the  kill- 
ing.-' Millard  Moore.  It  is  uncontradicted  testimon3\  D.  A.  McBryde 
sa\'s  so,  other  witne.sses  saj'  so,  and  Millard  has  some  plan  and  sense  about 
him,  has  he  not.''  He  knew  that  Sim.  Conole3''s  life  was  insured,  as  all 
the  other  neighbors  knew  it,  as  everybodj^  knew;  it  was  no  secret.  Millard 
says  to  himself  "ah,  Millard,  boy,  30U  are  into  it  now;  30U  must  have  help 
to  get  out  of  this  matter;  who  will  help  Millard.''  I  know  Sim.  Conole3''s 
life  is  insured.  I  know  what  I  will  do;  it  won't  do  for  me  to  say  that  his 
mother  killed  him;  I  could  not  get  any  jury  in  Robeson  county — in  Rich- 
mond, his  native  home,  the  place  where  they  all  know  him  and  love  him — I 
could  not  get  a  jury  in  Cumberland  county,  strangers  as  they  are  to  his 
family,  to  sa}^  that  poor  old  mother  wrung  from  the  boy  the  life  that  she  had 
given  him.  I  don't  believe  I  could  get  them  to  do  that;  I  know  I  could  not 
get  this  sister  convicted  of  this  oftence.  But  I  will  tell  you  what  I  will  try 
to  do:  I  have  not  much  better  felling  for  Dan.  McDougald  than  I  have  for 
Sim  Conoley;  everybody  knows  that  I  indicted  him  in  1889  for  trespass, 
because  he  had  cut  six  turpentine  trees  on  my  land,  and  I  made  him  pay  me 
$5."  Honest,  because  if  he  had  not  been  he  would  never  have  paid  him  $5 
for  having  cut  six  boxes  in  his  pine  trees.  "And  I  will  report  to  this  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Companj^  that  it  is  D.  A.  McDougald,  and  that 
if  you  will  come  here  and  help  me  prosecute  him,  if  you  will  stick  your  face 
in  front  and  not  let  them  see  that  it  is  the  villainous  face  of  Millard  Moore 
that  prosecutes  this  cause,  but  that  it  is  this  money,  this  Northern  power 
that  stands  here  to  prosecute  this  boy,  then  I  will  go  with  your  detectives, 
I  will  search  every  rat-hole  in  the  county  of  Robeson,  every  chest,  every 
secret  place  there  is  in  this  old  woman's  house  and  place,  and  turn  out  some- 
thing that  will  fasten  the  guilt  in  public  opinion  in  this  matter." 

Whom  did  you  see  called  as  a  witness  ?  Millard  F.  Moore,  brought  there 
upon  the  stand  and  sworn;  and  on  the  other  day  did  you  notice  him  how,  as 
we  all  saw,  he  had  to  be  carried,  reeling  in  his  drunkenness,  from  this  court 
room  during  the  trial  of  this  cause  ?  Ah,  gentlemen,  let  him  seek  forgetful- 
ness,  such  as  he  may  find,  in  intoxication. 

But  they  say  that  Dan.  McDougald  ran  away.  I  will  not  talk  to  you  long 
about  that.  The  argument  of  the  counsel  who  preceded  me  was  so  satis- 
factory, so  full,  so  complete,  both  as  to  the  law  and  as  to  this  evidence  in 
particular,  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  speak;  but  I  ask  you  here  to 
take  this  maa  who  sat  upon  the  pinnacle  of  respectability;  who  feared  of  all 
things  any  reflection  upon  his  high  standing  and  character;  who  had  spent 
his  life  for  thirty  odd  years  in  building  for  himself  that  reputation  which  his 
friends  have  delighted  to  testify  to  you  about;  a  timid,  modest,  retiring  man, 
a  man  who  never  had  a  cross  word  with  another  man  in  his  life;  noted  for 
his  amiable  character  and  disposition;  a  charitable,  unselfish  man,  loved 
and  honored  by  his  church  as  well  as  by  his  friends;  loved  and  honored  b^- the 
young  men  that  surrounded  him,  for  in  their  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciation and  social  amusements  he  was  foremost  of  them  all,  the  leader,  you 
may  say,  among  all  his  associates;  gentlemen,  if  j^ou  believe  anything  from 
the  testimony  here,  loved  by  every  man,  both  old  and  j-oung,  and  who  has 


5^  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

been  followed  here  to  your  county  by  these  friends  in  trouble,  he  cannot  be 
guilty;  that  it  is  contrar}'  to  nature  that  a  man  should  fall  from  the  heavens 
of  respectability  to  the  hell  of  damnation  and  villainy  at  one  fall;  that  crime, 
like  everything  else,  comes  step  b\-  step;  that  men  fall  not  at  one  time,  in  one 
fall,  but  that  it  is  gradual.  Then,  I  say  here,  take  a  man  who  stood  that 
wa3',  would  he  turn  without  quailing  against  the  charge  that  tended  to  lay 
his  character  low;  that  tended  to  rob  him  of  the  friends  who  loved  him;  that 
tended  to  take  from  him  his  position  in  his  church,  in  all  social  matters; 
couple  that  with  the  harrowing  care  for  his  life;  do  you  believe  that  the  people 
of  Richmond  county  would  form  themselves  in  a  body  to  go  to  Robeson 
county  to  protect  him,  if  they  heard  nothing  that  made  it  necessary?  These 
people  of  Richmond  county,  Scotch  as  most  of  us  are,  are  peaceable  and  law- 
abiding,  and  would  no  more  invade  the  peace  and  quiet  of  Robeson  county 
than  we  would  have  Robeson  count\f  invade  ours.  But  we  have  loved  this 
defendant,  and  when  we  heard  that  cry  for  his  blood,  knowing  this  Insu- 
rance Corapan3^;  knowing  the  character  of  Millard  F.  Moore;  having  seen 
him  so  many  times  within  the  prisoner's  dock  with  the  numerous  felonies 
and  disgraceful  charges  which  he  has  been  called  upon  in  courts  of  justice 
to  answer,  we  determined  that,  should  the  blood  of  this  defendant  be  shed, 
it  should  not  be  by  a  wild  mob  who  had  been  incited  to  madness  by  an  In- 
surance Company  or  Millard  Moore,  but  it  should  be  shed  by  the  hands  of 
twelve  true,  honest  men,  whoever  they  might  be,  and  by  them  alone. 

And  will  you,  gentlemen,  dip  your  hands  in  his  blood?  I  tell  you,  if 
you  do,  if  you  do  and  do  not  do  it  rightfully,  you  will  never  clean.se  them  in 
this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come.  His  is  a  life  that  is  as  God-given  as 
yours,  and  none  but  he  who  gave  that  life  has  a  right  to  take  it,  save  in 
strict  compliance  with  the  law,  and  I  hope,  oh,  God,  I  pray  to  You,  that 
these  men  here,  who  sit  upon  the  jury,  may  never  be  charged  with  having 
dipped  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  I).  A.  McDougald  wrongfully  by  taking 
the  life  that  they  had  no  right  to  take. 

Now,  is  he  guilty?  If  he  is,  gentlemen,  I  submit  that  that  poor  old 
woman  who  sat  there  trembling  in  her  infirmity,  who  laid  during  the  last 
portion  of  her  testimony  on  her  bed,  who  could  not  hold  a  steady  hand  in 
your  presence,  says  she  saw  this  man,  swears  to  you  with  the  positiveness 
of  conviction  that  he  is  not  guilty,  I  submit  she  has  made  a  fearful  mistake; 
I  had  as  soon  believe  that  a  voice  from  heaven  itself  would  be  mistaken  or 
would  state  to  you  an  untruth  as  that  that  old  woman  would  do  it,  who  for 
years  and  years  has  stood  and  looked  as  it  were  into  her  open  grave,  and 
who  now,  and  when  she  last  spoke  to  you,  was  stretched  upon  the  bed  from 
which  she  knew  not  that  she  would  ever  arise.  Has  she  told  you  the  truth 
or  not?  And  will  you  let  the  testimony  of  D.  B.  McLauchlin  cast  a  shaow 
upon  the  fairness  of  her  last  words  in  this  world,  for  she  will  say  but  few 
more;  her  course,  according  to  nature,  we  have  a  right  to  expect,  is  about 
run.  Would  she  willingly  die  with  a  lie  upon  her  lips?  I  believer  her, 
I  believe,  gentlemen,  that  the  words  that  fell  from  her  lips  are  pearls  of 
truths  that  3'ou  may  receive  and  that  you  may  rely  upon.  I  believe,  gentle- 
men of  the  jurN^  that  they  must  take  another  plot  and  the^'  must  bring 
another  man  here  than  D.  B.  McLauchlin  to  upset  the  testimony  of  that  old 
woman.  Gentlemen.  I  judge  you  as  I  judge  m3'self  and  I  believe  I  would 
be  honest  in  the  trial  of  this  cause;  I  believe  I  have  been;  I  will  not  talk  to 
you  about  any  aspersion  that  has  been  tried  to  be  cast  upon  her  testimony;  I 
will  ask  you  not  to  put  double  mourning  upon  that  old  soul;  I  will  ask  you 
to  raise  that  head  you  see  bowed  in  mourning  before  3'ou;  fill  that  heart,  that 
is  stricken  with  grief  with  joy  once  more.  Harken  to  the  cr3'  of  the  blood 
and  kin  of  Sim.  Conole3';  condemn  and  repel  here  in  this  court  this  cry  of 
the  New  York  Mutual  Insurance  Company  for  the  blood  of  this  Southern 
boy.  Give  him  to  his  triends  and  parents;  they  loved  him  once,  they  love 
him  now,  the3^  have  sheltered  him  for  years,  and  they  only  ask  3'ou,  gentle- 
men of  the  jur3',  his  friends,  the  mother,  the  sisters  of  Simeon  Conoley,  yea, 
ever3^  man  who  calls  him.self  friend  to  Simeon  Conole3'',  asks  you  to  give 
back  that  life  to  us  that  we  love;  don't  take  his  blood;  don't,  don't  dip  your 
hands  in  his  blood.  Give  him  to  us,  we  have  loved  him  and  we  will  love 
him  forever  and  ever  ! 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


83 


WALTKR  H.  NEA.L.    ESQ. 
of  Laurinburg,  N.  C. 


Walter  H.  Neal,  Esq.— for  the  prosecution. 

May  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gcntletnen  of  the 
futy  : 

So  far  as*my  connection  with  this  case  is  con- 
cerned I  desire  to  thank  you  for  the  considera- 
tion that  3'ou  have  given  the  evidence  introduced, 
as  well  also  as  for  the  attention  5-ou  have  given 
the  able  counsel  who  preceded  me.  If  I  know  my 
own  heart,  and  I  think  I  do,  I  have  but  one  de- 
sire in  this  case,  and  that  is  to  arrive  at  the  truth 
of  this  issue,  and  of  that  ultimate  consummation 
I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt.  I  was  taught  at 
the  feet  ot  my  father  that  the  great  object  of  all 
intellectual  research  was  the  discernment  of 
truth,  and  it  is  my  conception  of  the  duty  of  a 
lawyer  that  it  should  be  done  by  the  fairest 
and  best  methods.  Now,  I  desire  to  say  to  3'ou 
that  against  this  defendant,  IMcDoirgald,  I  do 
not  cherish  in  m\-  heart  one  particle  of  malice; 
and  if  he  were  permitted  to  speak  to  you,  he 
would  saj'  that  our  relations  have  alvvaj's  been 
most  cordial  in  their  character,  and  that  between  us  there  has  never  been  the 
slightest  estrangement. 

It  cannot  be  contradicted  that  at  one  time  Mr.  McDougald  had  a  good 
reputation  in  the  community  in  which  he  resided;  it  cannot  be  successfully 
refuted  but  that  at  one  time  he  was  a  man  of  financial  substance;  but  I  say 
to  you  that  you  cannot  say  that,  because  a  man  at  one  time  occupied  a  fair 
position  in  society-  and  because  he  has  been  a  successful  financier,  he  shall 
escape  the  penalties  of  the  law.  There  is  not  in  this  country,  gentlemen  of 
the  jur\',  one  law  for  the  rich  and  another  law  for  the  poor;  there  is  not  here 
one  law  for  the  aristocrat  and  one  for  the  man  of  humble  origin,  for  it  is  the 
boast  of  our  institutions  and  the  prestige  of  our  people  that  all  men  are 
equal  before  the  law.  I  will  tell  you  that  I  do  not  want  my  finger-tips 
tinged  with  the  blood  of  an  iifnocent  man,  nay,  more  than  that,  I  tell  you 
that  I  would  not  assist  5'ou  in  tinging  your  finger-tips  with  the  blood  ot  an 
innocent  man;  but  I  believe  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  that  Daniel  A. 
McDougo.ld  murdered  his  mother's  brother.  I  believe  that  on  the  21st  of 
April,  last,  when  silently  the  shades  of  evening  had  gathered  over  the  old 
homestead,  where  his  mother  had  dreamed  the  short  ros}*  dreams  of  child- 
hood, that  he  went  there  in  disguise  and  violated  not  only  the  laws  of  man 
and  the  laws  of  his  countr\%  but  he  violated  that  law  which  God  gave  to 
IM'oses  on  Sinai's  smoky  crest,  and  which  was  carved  on  the  tables  of  stone: 
"Thou  shalt  not  kill."  I  shall  prosecute  him  fearlessly,  vigorously,  but 
fairl3'. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  a  great  deal  has  been  said  in  this  case  about  my 
connection  with  the  Insurance  Compau}'.  I  have  no  apology  to  make.  I 
appear  in  this  case  by  the  consent  of  the  Solicitor  and  with  the  approval  of 
Coiirt.  If  it  is  wrong,  pr'aj'  tell  me  would  Judge  Mclver  see  it  done.'*  If  it 
were  wrong,  would  Frank  McNeill,  3-our  honorable  Solicitor,  see  it  done  ? 
No,  veril}',  neither  one  of  them  would,  and  it  is  an  insult  to  your  intelligence 
and  it  is  on©  which  3'ou  ought  to  re.sent,  when  an3'  law3'er  comes  before  3-ou 
tr3^ing  to  prejudice  3-our  minds  and  warp  3^our  judgment  and  get  3-011  to  ren- 
der a  verdict  which  otherwise  3'ou  would  not  render.  Judge  INIacRae  had 
something  to  sa3-  about  it,  but  he  was  more  conservative  than  Mr.  Shaw.  I 
guess  Judge  MacRae  has  been  a  corporation  law3'er.  I  take  it,  Mr.  Shaw 
lia'^  had  some  experience  in  that  line;  the3'  ought  to  bring  forth  "fruits  meet 
for  repentance;  "  that  is  what  the3-  ought  to  do.  It  reminds  me  of  an  old 
homel3'  sa3'ing — 

"You  eat  1113'  meat  and  drink  1113-  tea. 
And  run  about  town  and  talk  about  me." 


84  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

^  Ah,  gentlemen,  the}'  are  not  satisfied  to  say  that  the  Insurance  Com" 
pany  is  prosecuting  this  cause,  but  it  is  a  Yankee  Insurance  Company  going 
to  hang  a  Southern  boj'.  Now,  that  was  a  nice  argument  to  make  for  the 
defense  in  this  case,  was  it  not?  It  was  a  Yankee  Insurance  Company  and 
a  Southern  boj'  ! 

Gentlemen,  there  are  three  propositions  which  I  shall  discuss."  I  shall 
endeavor  not  to  repeat  because  you  have  already  been  detained  here  for  a 
long  time;  and  I  ask,  I  beg,  that  you  will  give  me  that  same  kind  considera- 
tion and  attention  that  you  would  give  me  if  I  were  seated  around  your  own 
hospitable  firesides.  The  propositions  to  which  I  invite  your  attention  are 
these  :  First,  that  Simeon  Conoley  was  killed  by  a  man  in  disguise.  Second, 
that  the  defendant.  D.  A.  McDougald,  was  that  man  in  disguise.  Third, 
that  McDougald  had  a  motive  for  it  What  evidence  have  we  to  support  the 
proposition  that  the  man  w'ho  murdered  Simeon  Conoley  was  in  disguise  ? 
The  testimony  of  the  first  witness  which  bears  upon  this  proposition  was 
Dr.  Graham's.  Now,  it  is  uncontroverted  that  Dr.  Graham  is  a  man  of 
unquestioned  character.  Dr.  Graham  said  he  had  sold  this  defendant  some 
lampblack.  Is  that  denied  ?  I  opine  not.  I  am  going  to  prove  this  propo- 
sition, not  only  b}'  the  defendant,  but  also  by  the  admission  of  Mr.  John  D. 
Shaw,  Jr.,  his  counsel,  and  if  he  has  not  placed  his  client  in  a  predicament 
I  don't  comprehend  the  situation.  Where  is  that  lampblack?  I  take  the 
evidence  as  it  falls  from  Mr.  Shaw's  lips,  the  admission  of  his  counsel,  that 
that  lampblack  that  Dr.  Graham  sold  him  was  found  over  there  at  Conoley's 
after  the  murder,  and  when  the  stenographer's  report  comes  out  that  glaring 
admission  will  face  Mr.  Shaw  that  here,  in  addressing  the  jury  in  behalf  of 
his  client,  he  admitted  that  the  lampblack  that  Dr.  B.  G-  Graham  sold  D.  A. 
McDougald  was  found  at  Conole3''s,  and  Mr.  Daniels,  the  Insurance  Agent, 
took  it.  That  is  Mr.  Shaw's  admission.  Mr.  Shaw  says  it  is  true.  What 
did  Dan.  McDougald,  the  defendant  in  this  case,  tell  Dr.  Graham  that  he 
wanted  with  that  blacking?  He  told  him  he  wanted  it  for  Charley  Wicker. 
You  will  hear  later  on — they  have  not  argued  it  3'et,  but  you  will  henr  some 
of  the  lawyers  say  that  he  wanted  it  to  black  himself  with  in  that  concert. 
Now,  that  is  not  so.  Who  says  it  is  true?  Dan.  McDougald  says  it  is  not 
true.  "Dr.  Graham,  I  want  some  lampblack."  What  do  you  want  with  it, 
the  doctor  asks  ?  "I  want  it  for  Charlie  Wicker;  he  wants  to  black  himself 
in  a  concert  over  here  in  Robeson  county."  Now,  whenever  you  hear  any 
of  these  gentlemen  who  are  going  to  follow  me  say  that  he  wanted  that 
lampblack  for  the  purpo.se  of  blacking  himself,  you  will  just  think,  "now, 
Dan.  McDougald  says  that  is  not  so."  Recollect  that,  gentlemen.  Who 
else  savs  the  man  was  in  disguise  ?  Lizzie  Conoley  says  so;  Lizzie  Conoley 
and  Edwin  Conoley  also  believe  that  the  man  who  killed  Simeon  Conoley 
was  in  disguise.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  the  opinion  of  the  murdered  man's 
sister;  she  saw  the  man,  Edwin  saw  him.  Has  the  defendant  dissented  from 
that?  Not  at  all.  Has  he  ever  said  anything  to  the  contrary?  Not  one 
single  thing.  What  did  the  defendant  say  about  it  ?  He  met  Rev.  Mr.  Lyon 
on  the  train,  and  this  man  of  God  remarks  to  him,  "  Danny,  I  heard  that 
the  man  was  said  to  be  in  disguise,  now  what  have  you  got  to  say  about 
that?"  "  I  have  no  doubt  about  that."  Mr.  Shaw  denies  the  truth  of  my 
proposition.  Now,  who  knows  the  most  about  it;  Dan.,  who  was  there,  or 
Mr.  Shaw,  his  counsel  ?  I  want  to  know  who.se  opinion  is  the  most  valuable 
in  this  case,  Dan's  or  Mr.  Shaw's?  He  says,  Bro.  Lyon,  Aunt  Lizzie  Cono- 
ley and  Edwin  say  they  have  no  doubt  about  it."  I  will  tell  you  the  reason 
whv  Dan  was  so  frank  on  that  occasion:  he  was  making  tracks  for  the  Pacific 
ocean.  It  is  a  long  way  off;  Din,  thought  he  could  make  that  admission 
then  because  he  was  on  an  iron  horse  steaming  awa\'  to  far-off  Oregon. 

Who  else  testifies  about  this  particular  proposition  ?  The  first  time  this 
man  is  seen  in  disguise  was  by  Jeff.  Cobb,  at  Shandon.  Has  anybody  con- 
tradicted Jeff.  Cobb?  If  they  have  it  escaped  my  observation.  He  says  he 
was  at  his  house  about  a  mile  from  Shandon,  that  he  saw  a  colored  man  with 
a  duster  coming  down  the  road.  Fannie  Mears  next  said  that  that  man  had 
on  a  long  duster;  had  on  whiskers  and  had  something  at  his  back,  and  it 
created  such  an  impression  on  her  mind  that  she  went  home  and  told  her 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  85 

family  about  it.  Is  not  that  so?  Now,  if  that  man  was  not. in  disguise 
why  was  it  that  it  should  make  such  an  impression  on  Fannie  Mears  that 
she  should  comment  on  it  to  her  family.  The  next  who  sees  him  is  Henry 
Smith.  Oh,  yes,  they  were  greatly  disturbed  about  Henry  Smith's  testi- 
mony. Why  did  not  Henry  Smith  tell  this  to  the  coroner's  jury,  about  the 
white  spots  he  saw  on  his  hands  and  the  white  on  the  back  of  his  neck  ?  I 
will  tell  you  an  unanswerable  reason:  It  was  the  7th  of  May  when  they  had 
the  examination  at  Mill  Prong;  Dhu.  McDougald  fled  on  the  ist  of  May;  Mr. 
Shaw,  the  defendant's  counsel,  was  there  trying  to  fasten  this  crime  on 
somebod}'  else;  that  is  the  reason  Mr.  Shaw  was  not  hunting  up  evidence 
that  day  to  convict  Dan.  McDougald.  Jeff.  Cobb  says,  and  he  is  a  white 
man  of  unquestioned  character,  that  ju.st  as  soon  as  that  man  passed  along, 
Henry  Smith  came  to  him  and  said,  "Mr.  Cobb,  that  was  a  white  man 
blacked  up  as  a  negro."  Henr}'  Smith  was  a  negro  and  knew  him,  and 
this  man  passed  him  in  the  lane,  and  he  goes  right  straight  and  tells  Mr. 
Cobb  that  that  man  is  a  white  man  disguised  as  a  negro;  that  he  saw  the 
back  of  his  hands  and  his  neck.  So  Smith  is  fully  corroborated  by  one  of 
the  best  white  men  in  Robeson  count\\  Mr.  Neill  Smith  says  that  it  made 
an  impression  on  him  at  the  time  that  it  was  a  white  man  disgui.sed  as  a 
negro,  and  Neill  Smith's  character,  like  Caesar's  wife,  is  above  suspicion. 

The  next  one  is  Mrs.  Humphrey:  she  says  that  the  man  just  fairly  glit- 
tered; well,  J.  C.  Conoley  and  Henry  vSmith  glitter,  but  they  did  not  have  on 
specks,  they  did  not  have  on  a  duster,  they  did  not  have  on  false  whiskers 
and  they  did  not  have  on  a  wig,  and  a  pack  on  their  back.  They  try  to 
prove  that  it  was  a  peddler.  Now,  let  me  tell  you,  if  Dan.  McDougald  had 
showed  what  he  was  peddling  on  that  day,  he  would  have  shown  his  para- 
phernalia that  he  had  selected  with  which  to  adorn  himself  for  a  murder.  Did 
3'ou  hear  of  this  man  showing  his  wares  an^^where  along  his  line  of  march  ? 
The  iNtajor  is  going  to  assume  that  the  man  was  a  peddler;  he  did  not  try  to 
sell  anywhere  that  you  ever  heard  of  What  did  J.  C.  Conoley,  col.,  say 
about  this  ?  J.  C.  Conoley  says  that  this  man  came  along  on  this  same  road; 
that  he  was  black  and  had  on  a  duster  and  whiskers,  wore  an  old  slouch  hat, 
and  had  a  pack  across  his  back.  Let  me  tell  you  something  that  would 
convince  any  sensible  man;  that  would  convince  any  man  who  knows  any- 
thing about  the  habits  and  language  of  colored  men  in  this  country;  that 
would  convince  any  man  in  the  world  that  the  man  who  spoke  to  John 
Conolp\',  col.,  was  not  a  negro.  He  called  him  "boss?"  You  can  go 
out  here  in  this  town,  you  can  go  all  over  Cumberland  county,  you  can  go 
down  to  Edgecombe  county  and  to  Craven,  and  to  Warren  county,  where  it  is 
sa'  '  there  are  more  negroes  than  in  any  other  count}' in  the  State;  you  can  trav- 
erse the  whole  of  North  Carolina,  3'es,  the  entire  cotton  belt,  and  never  hear 
one  negro  call  another  "boss."  It  is  not  disputed,  gentlemen  of  thejurj', 
not  at  all,  but  that  when  this  obedient  dog,  as  John  called  him,  was  out 
there  playing  in  the  woods  with  John  Conoley,  that  this  man  said,  "boss, 
will  your  dog  bite  ?"  That  one  little  thing  would  prove  to  any  reasonable 
man  that  whoever  went  along  that  road  was  a  white  man  in  disguise. 

This  same  man  next  meets  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes  within  a-quarterofa 
mile  of  the  murder.  That  was  about  dark  in  the  afternoon,  about  five  or  six 
o'clock.  That  it  was  Dan.  McDougald  I  shall  presently  argue  to  you. 
He  was  perfectly  familiar  with  all  the  paths,  and  the  niimdiae  with  which 
he  went  into  all  the  details  of  the  route  of  the  murderer  shows  that  he  was 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  route  that  the  murderer  took;  that  he,  just  after 
passing  John  Wilkes'  house,  went  out  of  the  field  and  up  to  the  smoke-house. 
You  have  got  the  evidence  of  Lizzie  Conoley  and  Edwin,  the  murdered  man's 
sis  er  and  nephew.  They  sav  it  was  a  disguised  man;  thev  told  Dan.  Mc- 
Dougald so,  and  he  did  not  deny  it.  He  told  Mr.  Lyon  that,  in  his  opinion, 
it  was  a  white  man  in  disguise,  yet  Mr.  Shaw  don't  think  so;  Dan.  McDou- 
gald in  the  silent  recesses  of  his  heart  thinks  one  thing,  and  Mr.  Shaw  gets 
up  here  and  tells  you  his  client  is  mistaken  about  it.  Now.  I  want  to  know 
who  knows  more  about  this,  Dan.  McDougald  or  Mr.  Shaw?  It  seems  to 
me  that  Mr.  McDougald  ought  to  know  more  about  it. 

Now,  let  us  see,  was  Dan   McDougald   that  man  in  disguise?     It  does 


86  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

seem  to  me  that  that  proposition  can  be  proved  so  efifectively  that  it  is  almost 
useless  to  discuss  it.  There  cannot  be  any  doubt  about  the  fact  that  on  the 
morning  of  the  21st  of  April  Dan.  MeDougald  was  in  Laurinburg.  Take 
the  defendant's  own  witness,  D.  E.  McNair:  He  states  that  the  train  runs 
to  Maxton  and  on  to  Alma;  so  Judge  MacRae  says,  so  says  Mr.  Shaw,  both 
of  them  say  that  he  went  on  to  Alma.  Mind  you,  there  is  Laurinburg;  the 
next  station  of  the  Central  Railroad  Company  is  Maxton,  and  the  next 
Alma,  just  two  miles  below  Maxton;  now  they  say  that  he  went  on  to  Alma. 
Well,  now,  we  dispute  it;  we  first  dispute  it,  and  then  we  say  that  even 
were  that  so  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  State's  position  in  this  matter; 
not  at  all.  You  can  not  be  troubled  about  reaching  a  conclusion  that  he  got 
off  the  train  there  at  Maxton.  Mr.  Cottingham  swears  vSo,  Mr.  Luther  Mc- 
Cormick  says  that  it  is  true,  and  Dugald  McNair,  who  is  the  conductor, 
says  that  the  train  stopped  there  long  enough  that  morning  to  get  breakfast, 
and  he  went  over  to  the  hotel  and  got  his  breakfast.  Conductor  McNair 
says  that  he  went  on  to  Alma.  Suppose  he  did;  it  is  only  two  miles  from 
there  up  to  Maxton;  and  here  is  Dan  MeDougald,  sitting  in  the  Court  room 
during  the  progress  of  the  whole  trial;  there  was  his  brother,  residing  at 
Alma  at  that  time,  and  there  was  Sellers;  never  has  he  been  seen  at  Alma  by 
an3-bod3^  except  Mr.  Dugald  McNair.  Gentlemen,  Dougald  McNair  testified 
to  something  else;  he  told  you  that  at  that  time,  as  his  train  would  be  ap- 
proaching Alma  the  other  train  would  be  going  on  back  to  Maxton.  Now, 
I  will  tell  you  how  they  try  to  side-track  you  on  this  particular  phase  of  the 
case.  Dugald  McNair  testified  that  their  train  reached  Alma  about  7  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  Judge  MacRae  and  Mr.  Shaw  try  to  drive  it  into  your 
minds  that  Cole  testified  that  it  was  about  7  o'clock  when  he  saw  MeDougald 
on  the  tank,  and  there  ain't  a  God  blessed  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  don't  say 
they  intentionally  misrepresented  these  facts,  but  Judge  MacRae  and  Mr. 
vShaw  shot  wide  of  the  mark.  The  evidence  is  that  Cole  saw  MeDougald  at 
the  water  tank  at  thirty-five  mintites  past  eight.  Oh,  yes,  this  model  chris- 
tian gentleman,  defended  by  this  able  array  of  counsel,  trying  to  side-track 
you.  Gentlemen,  I  ask  you,  in  all  truth  and  all  good  conscience,  if  that 
man  Cole  testified  that  he  saw  MeDougald  at  the  water  tank  at  7  o'clock. 
If  there  is  a  man  in  this  jury  box  that  will  say  that  Cole  testified  he  saw 
him  there  at  7  o'clock;  if  his  Honor  will  say  that  the  evidence  in  this  case 
places  Dan  MeDougald  at  the  water  tank  at  7  o'clock,  I  will  wash  my  hands 
of  this  case.  You  are  not  going  to  say  it.  They  knew  that  it  was  dama- 
ging; they  knew  that  Dugald  McNair's  testimony  would  not  stand  a  test, 
that  thej^  had  to  brace  it,  and  the  only  way  to  do  it  was  to  manufacture  tes- 
timony themselves.  Of  course  I  do  not  say  that  out  of  any  disrespect  to  the 
gentlemen,  not  at  all,  but  that  is  the  fact  in  the  case.  Don't  3?ou  think  it  is 
exceedingly  singular  that  Dougald  McNair's  ticket  report  don't  show  some- 
thing about  this  thing?  Here  is  a  man  that  is  a  conductor,  and  he  is  re- 
quired to  make  out  ticket  reports  about  the  passengers  he  carries;  he  makes 
out  a  ticket  report  to  the  Company  that  don't  show  he  carried  him  to  Aima. 
If  he  was  at  Alma,  if  they  are  so  anxious  to  prove  that  he  was  at  Alma  that 
morning,  pray  tell  me,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  could  not  they  make  it  a  little 
clearer  to  you  ?  There  he  sits,  if  they  are  so  anxious  to  prove  that  lie  was  at 
Alma  that  morning,  could  not  they  have  put  John  MeDougald  on  the  stand, 
John  MeDougald,  the  defendant's  brother. 

Now,  was  he  at  the  water  tank  ?  You  cannot  have  any  doubt  about 
that,  not  a  particle.  Mr.  Cole  says  that  just  about  twenty  minutes  before 
the  freight  train  passed  there,  he  saw  MeDougald  up  at  the  tank;  that  he 
caiue  from  towards  the  crossing  of  the  Carolina  Central  Railroad.  I  want  to 
know,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  if  Daniel  MeDougald  was  not  trying  to 
keep  himself  concealed,  for  what  purpose  did  he  go  up  in  the  woods,  half  a 
mile  from  the  station,  to  take  the  train  ?  You  cannot  have  any  di  u  it  but 
that  MeDougald  was  there  at  the  tank.  I  will  tell  you  somebody's  te;-ti  uony 
that  they  handled  mighty  gingerly'  in  this  case,  and  that  is  Lizzie  McCoy's. 
She  sa^'S  she  knows  Daniel  MeDougald,  and  knows  him  well;  she  lives  in 
the  same  town  that  Daniel  does  and  has  lived  there  for  many  years,  and 
Lizzie  saw  him  at  the  tank.     Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  has  Lizzie  McCoy's  tes- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  .      87 

timony  been  contradicted?  Judge  MacRae  says,  "Well,  what  does  Lizzie 
McCoy  say?  Well,  I  don't  believe  I  will  say  anything  more  about  Lizzie." 
and  he  dismissed  that  part  of  the  inquiry.  And  if  Mr.  Shaw  dicussed  her 
testinion3'  at  all,  I  did  not  hear  it;  it  was  not  Lizzie's  testimony  they  were 
looking  for. 

Now,  gentlemen,  as  to  K.  H.  Cole's  testimony.  K.  H.  Cole  says  that  a 
man  came  up  there;  that  he  had  a  light  moustache,  and  that  he  believes  that 
McDougald  is  the  man.  He  sajs  in  his  best  opinion  he  was  the  man.  Does 
he  stop  there  ?  He  says  he  asked  the  man,  "  where  are  j'ou  from  ?  "  He  re- 
plied, ■'  My  name  is  McDougald,  and  I  am  from  Laurinburg."  Now,  that 
is  what  he  told  him.  Here  is  one  witness,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Lizzie  Mc- 
Coy, swearing  that  she  knows  Daniel  McDougald,  and  here  is  another  wit- 
ness that  comes  on  the  stand,  who  says  he  saw  a  man  there  correspond- 
ing to  the  description  of  McDougald.  Have  you  a  doubt  in  your  mind  as  to 
whether  it  is  the  prisoner  ? 

What  does  Mr.  Lockamy  say  about  this?  Mr.  Lockamy  is  a  conductor; 
he  says  that  a  man  got  on  his  train  and  that  he  paid  his  fare  to  Shandon; 
that  when  he  saw  the  man  there,  he  said  to  Capt.  Lockamy.  "  How  long  be- 
fore the  train  goes?  "  Lockamy  remarked  to  him,  "  The  mail  train  will  be 
along  in  a  few  moments,  take  that."  "No,  I  am  not  in  a  hurrj',"  replied 
the  defendant.  There  is  another  circumstance.  That  man,  if  he  was  Daniel 
McDougald,  was  not  anxious  to  arrive  at  Shandon  earl}'  in  the  day,  but  he 
preferred  to  take  a  train  that  was  slow  in  its  mode  of  travel  and  would  possi- 
bly be  late  in  reaching  Shandon,  where  he  would  leave  the  train  and  get  intp 
his  murderous  disguise  He  told  Lockamy,  "  I  am  in  no  hurry."  "  Stran- 
ger, you  had  better  go  down  and  take  the  mail  train;  you  have  got  time." 
"  No,  I  am  in  no  hurry,  I  will  take  the  freight."  Now,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  there  are  not  many  men  who  are  going  to  travel  on  a  freight  train  in 
this  country  when  they  can  take  a  passenger  train  going  to  the  same  place, 
unless  the\'  have  time  to  get  rid  of  for  a  particular  purpose.  Where  did  he 
tell  that  Captain  he  was  going?  He  told  the  condutor  that  he  was  going 
right  to  Shandon,  and  paid  his  fare  to  Shandon,  where  we  find  this  man. 
And  now  let  us  see  about  Mr.  DeVane's  testimony.  A  great  deal  has  been 
said  about  why  the  State  did  not  put  on  Mr.  DeVane.  Let  me  tell  you 
something:  if  anything  should  happen  by  which  this  cause  should  ever  be 
tried  again,  you  will  never  catch  McDougald  putting  him  on  the  stand 
again.  What  does  he  saj^  ?  He  did  not  state  what  Mr.  Shaw  said  he  stated. 
I  will  tell  you  what  was  the  trouble  with  Mr.  Shaw.  It  was  manifest  in  his 
whole  speech;  he  sat  down  in  his  office  at  Laurinburg  and  wrote  his  speech; 
he  wrote  his  speech  at  home,  thinking  about  what  he  would  like  for  the  tes- 
timony to  be,  and  when  he  came  over  here  the  testimony  was  another  thing, 
but  he  had  learned  his  speech  and  he  had  to  say  it.  It  does  not  make  any 
difference  about  the  evidence.  He  said,  "sitting  down  in  m\- moments  of 
retirement  and  reflection,  I  have  prepared  this  argument  based  on  what  I 
think  the  testimonj'  ought  to  be  and  what  I  think  will  probabl}'  raise  a  doubt 
in  your  minds; "  and  coming  over  here  he  finds  the  evidence  is  another 
thing,  but  he  is  going  to  deliver  himself  all  the  same  and  bear  the  conse- 
quences. 

Gentlemen,  if  you  will  pardon  me  for  digressing,  I  want  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  "conscience  doth  make  cowards  of  us  all."  A  very 
great  man  said  that.  I  love  Judge  MacRae,  I  esteem  him  for  his  learning,  I 
love  him  as  my  friend,  a  magnificent  lawyer,  an  able  jurist  and  a  polished 
advocate.  But,  gentlemen,  the  Judge  could  not  throw  himself  into  the 
breach  of  this  case.  I  say,  "conscience  doth  mxke  cowards  of  us  all."  He 
felt,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  the  State  had  so  completely  overwhelmed 
the  detendant  in  this  case;  he  felt,  gentlemen,  that  this  defendant  had  gone 
there  ancl  that  he  had  murdered  his  mother's  brother — Crod  knows,  I  am 
sorry  that  she  sits  here  to  day  in  the  weeds  of  mourning,  and  they  have  been 
driven  to  great  extremities  in  this  case.  This  man  DeVane  did  not  testify 
like  Mr.  Shaw  said  he  did.  Mr.  Shaw  told  yon,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that 
DeVane  swore  that  this  was  not  the  man;  he  did  not  swear  any  such  thing. 
Mr.  DeVane  swore,  "  I  cannot  say  whether  it  is  the  man  or  not,  "  did  he  not. 


88      '  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

When  his  Honor  suras  up  this  case  and  presents  the  testimony,  I  ask  your 
attention  to  that  evidence.  He  says,  "I  cannot  sa}'."  What  else?  He 
says  it  was  a  man  about  the  same  make  and  build  as  this  defendant;  he  says 
he  might  have  been  a  little  taller,  but  he  was  about  the  same  make  and 
build.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  a  man's  height  has  not  got  something  to  do  with 
the  way  he  is  built,  then  I  don't  know  how  you  may  describe  a  man.  What 
other  point  is  there  in  Mr.  DeVane's  testimony  ?  What  else  does  Mr.  Shaw 
get  out  of  it?  He  sa3-s  his  complexion  was  not  as  light  as  the  prisoner's  is. 
You  will  remember  the  prisoner  has  been  in  jail  for  some  time,  and  it  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  a  man  kept  in  jail  will  bleach;  you  can  take  any  man, 
I  don't  care  who  he  is,  or  how  dark  his  complexion,  put  him  in  jail  and  keep 
him  there  for  two  or  three  months  and  it  will  bleach  him.  Oh,  yes,  this  is 
not  the  man,  because  his  complexion  after  he  has  been  in  jail  has  bleached; 
why  yes,  the  man  is  bleached  because  he  is  kept  from  the  rays  of  the  sun, 
because  he  does  not  breathe  the  same  pure  air  that  we  have  been  breathing, 
that  is  the  reason;  you  cannot  find  any  consolation  in  DeVane's  testimony, 
for  he  comes  and  sa3's  that  the  man  he  saw  was  about  the  same  make  and 
build  as  the  defendant. 

They  try  to  mislead  you  on  another  point;  they  would  have  you  believe, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  the  State  contends  that  the  duster,  if  he  did  wear 
a  duster  in  these  concerts,  was  the  same  duster  he  had  on;  now  the  State 
don't  contend  that;  it  makes  no  difference  whether  it  was  the  same  duster  or 
not;  it  makes  no  difference  whether  he  had  on  blacking  or  not.  The 
question  is,  what  did  he  have  on  on  this  particular  occasion  ?  Now, 
Charlotte  Dumas  says  that  a  white  man  passed  her  house  with  a  duster  on, 
and  having  a  grip  sack,  just  as  this  man  had.  W.  C.  McPhail  testified  that 
a  white  man  passed  there,  having  come  from  the  direction  of  Chirlotte 
Dumas'  house.  Judge  MacRae  asked  a  question,  how  in  the  world  did  that 
man  disguise  himself?  In  the  woods  that  that  witness  was  talking  about;  it 
is  located  between  McPhail's  place  and  Jeff.  Cobb's  place.  Who  brought 
out  that  testimony  ?  The  State  brought  it  out.  The  State  asked  the  ques- 
tion, "  is  not  it  cleared  land  all  along  there?"  They  thought  they  had  a 
clincher  there;  if  they  could  only  have  proved  that  how  glad  they  would 
have  been.  But  lo  and  behold  the  witnesses  answered,  "there  is  a  skirt  of 
thick  woods  along  there,"  and,  gentlemen,  that  is  the  place  at  which  this 
defendant  disguised  himself.  You  can  not  have  any  doubt  about  the  fact 
that  the  man  that  Smith  and  Cobb  and  Neill  Smith  and  Sallie  Wilkes  saw, 
the  man  that  went  along  that  road,  and  according  to  the  evidence  here  of 
Edwin  and  Lizzie  Conoley  the  man  in  disguise,  it  seems  to  me  that  I  have 
proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  jury  that  that  man  was  Dan.  MeDougald, 
in  disguise.  But  let  us  pursue  this  inquiry  a  little  further.  Where  do  we 
see  MeDougald  next  ?  He  is  at  Maxton  next  morning,  near  Maxton,  and 
who  sees  him  there?  Edgar  Gillespie.  If  you  have  heard  any  evidence 
contradicting  Edgar,  you  have  heard  more  than  I  have.  I  am  not  going  to 
argue  to  you  that  Edgar  is  a  man  of  good  character;  I  am  not  going  to  say 
that,  because  I  believe — and  I  am  going  to  deal  fairly  with  you  in  this 
case — it  has  been  proven  here  that  Edgar  is  a  man  of  bad  character,  but  that 
does  not  prove  that  he  can't  tell  the  truth.  Let  us  see,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  how  that  is:  Edgar  Gillespie  got  on  the  stand  and  swore  that  Me- 
Dougald came  to  his  house  with  his  Ta.ce  blacked  up,  and  at  first  he  did  not 
recognize  him.  Have  you  heard  any  evidence  to  the  contrary  ?  Not  a  par- 
ticle. I  ask  you,  sir,  (the  prisoner),  why  did  you  not  prove  where  you  were 
that  night?  Could  you  not  have  done  it?  Was  it  not  in  your  power ?  If 
Edgar  Gillespie's  testimony  was  not  true,  why  did  not  the  defendant  prove 
its  falsity?  It  was  true.  I  don't  ask  you  to  convict  this  man  because  he 
did  not  go  on  the  stand,  not  a  bit  of  it.  But  here  a  witness  comes  on  the 
Stand  and  swears  where  he  was  that  morning,  and  I  want  to  hear  one  scin- 
tilla of  evidence  to  show  that  he  was  not  at  Gillespie's;  there  is  not  a  par- 
ticle. And  Edgar  Gillespie  corroborates  his  testimony.  Edgar  says  that  he 
saw  him  there  the  morning  after  the  murder;  lour  days  after  that  Gillespie 
was  talking  to  Hector  Gilchrist;  four  days  after  this  thing  happened, 
Edgar  Gillespie,  this  same  man  of  bad  character,  was  talking  to  Hector 


for  the  Murder  oj  Simeon  tonoiey.  ^  ^ 

Gilchrist.  Where  was  the  defendant  ?  The  defendant  was  somewhere  in 
Laurinburg,  enjoying  the  same  good  reputation  that  he  had  enjo\-ed  previous 
to  the  commission  of  this  act,  with  no  suspicion  against  him,  not  a  shadow 
of  suspicion  against  him.  Have  you  proved  here  that  any  of  these  rumors 
had  been  broadcast  over  that  country?  Was  Kdgar  Gillespie  endowed  with 
the  powers  of  a  prophet  to  know  the  charge  agiinst  this  defendant  ?  But  yet 
this  colored  man,  Kdgar  Gillespie,  told  Htctor  Gilchrist  about  this  thing. 
Mr.  INIcKinnon  says  that  Hector  Gilchrist  is  a  man  of  good  character.  Edgar 
told  the  truth  about  this  transaction,  told  the  truth  about  it. 

What  did  they  get  out  of  John  Williams?  John  Williams  was  there ; 
John  said  he,  Edgar,  was  not  there  that  morning;  John  did  not  swear  that 
Edgar  Gillespie  was  not  home  that  night.  Who  else  do  the\'  put  on  the 
stand  ?  Mr.  Hester,  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting  Edgar  Gillespie,  but  he 
did  not  contradict  (jillesp^e;  for  instance,  on  the  examination  they  asked  this 
negro,  Gillespie,  "Edgar,  did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Hester  that  you  were  not  certain 
about  this  man  ?"  He  sa5'S,  "  yes,  I  told  him  .so;  "  he  admits  it.  Well,  I  ad- 
mit Edgar  tcjld  Hester  that.  I  will  not  repeat  to  you,  but  you  will  recollect 
the  reason  that  Edgar  Tiillespie  gave  Mr.  Hester.  He  gave  two  reasons. 
Hester  comes  to  him  before  Lumberton  Court  and  asks  him  about  it.  What 
does  he  tell  him  ?  Yes,  I  saw  McDougald  there.  Did  he  tell  it  anywhere 
else?  What  does  this  colored  man  McLean  say?  He  says  that  he  came  to 
his  house  over  in  Shandon  ;  he  asked  him  about  it  and  he  told  him  the  same 
story  that  he  had  told  Hector  Gilchrist  with  the  exception  that  he  said  that 
his  wife  was  there,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think,  from  tlie  grandiloquent  man- 
ner in  which  this  negro  talked,  that  this  was  an  addition  of  his  imagination. 
Well,  McDougald  then  goes  on  to  Maxton.  Where  was  he  all  that  night  ? 
Can  you  tell,  gentlemen  of  the  jury?  I  cannot,  except  upon  the  theory 
which  I  have  brought  to  3'our  attention.  He  is  at  Ma.xton  Wednesda}'  morn- 
ing.    Who  saw  him?     Mr.  Greenwall. 

Mr.  Greenwall  says  that  he  saw  his  face  and  it  had  lampblack  on  it,  and 
hecalledhim  Mr  Flaum  ;  Judge  MacRae says  that  Mr.  Greenwall  was  offended 
because  he  called  him  Mr.  Flaum.  Now,  this  man  has  sworn  to  you  that 
the  Judge  is  mistaken  about  that.  I  am  not  going  to  say  that  Judge  Mac- 
Rae wrote  his  speech  beforehand,  because  the  Judge  don't  do  that;  but  this 
man  Greenwall  distinctly  swore  that  he  felt  complimented  at  being  called 
Mr.  Flaum,  but  yet  the  Judge  says  that  this  defendant  made  him  mad.  Who 
else  saw  him  ?  Hear  Powers'  testimony.  What  did  Powers  say  ?  Powers 
says  that  he  saw  the  defendant  there  W'ednesday  morning  about  the  time  the 
train  steamed  up,  7  o'clock.  What  condition  was  the  defendant  in  then  ? 
Take  the  defendant's  own  witness.  He  sa3'S  that  when  he  first  saw  him,  he 
was  stooping  over  all  crouched  up  against  the  side  of  the  house.  Gentlemen 
of  the  jur}',  is  not  that  what  John  Powers  testified  to  ?  If  this  defendant  had 
not  been  up  to  .some  devilment  of  the  kind  that  is  charged  to  him  here,  if  he 
had  not  been  footing  it,  what  was  he  .so  tired  for  thus  earl 3-  in  the  morning, 
"all  crouched  up  and  kneeling  down  by  the  side  of  the  house?"  Why,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jur^',  in  the  morning  men  are  fresh.  H  the\'  have  been  at 
what  they  ought  to  be,  at  healthful  rest,  when  morning  conies  thej'  feel  re- 
freshed, as  you  feel  refreshed  ever}'  morning  from  the  arduous  labors  of  liie 
day.  But  here,  the  very  first  time  that  this  man  is  seen  after  that  fattful 
night,  according  to  his  own  witness,  and  he  cannot  say  that  he  is  mistaken, 
he  is  down  by  the  side  of  the  warehouse;  when  Mr.  Powers  first  saw  him  he 
was  there,  to  use  Mr.  Powers'  own  words,  "crouclied  up  against  the  si('e  of 
the  warehouse."  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  will  tell  j'ou  what  was  the 
matter;  the  prisoner  was  tired;  he  had  traveled  from  the  scene  of  that  mur- 
der to  Ma.xton  about  seventeen  miles.  But,  gentlemen,  they  say  to  3'ou, 
why  did  he  not  wash  at  one  of  those  streams  instead  of  washing  in  there  at 
Edgar  Gillespie's  house?  I  will  tell  you  why  it  was:  His  conscience  was 
lashing  him;  he  was  fleeing  from  the  scene  of  the  murder.  Mr.  Shaw  says 
the  defendant  loved  Conoley  like  a  brother;  yes,  he  did,  Mr.  Shaw;  he  loved 
him  like  Cain  loved  his  brother  Abel,  and  he  felt  like  Cain  did  when  he  cried, 
"  I  am  a  fugitive  upon  the  face  of  the  earth;  ever}'  man's  hand  is  against  me, 
and  whosoever  shall  catch  me  shall  slay  me."     That  accounts  for  his  not 


90  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

washing  at  some  of  those  nearear  streams.  If  3-011  recollect,  gentlemen,  it 
was  in  evidence  here  that  the  moon  shone  brightly  on  that  night;  it  had 
been  up  some  time  and  set  some  short  time  after  midnight,  and  you  are  not 
going  to  catch  this  prisoner  washing  in  the  moonlight;  he  would  wait  until 
the  moon  has  quit  riding  the  lazy  pacing  clouds.  Gentlemen,  I  am  going  to 
travel  out  of  the  record  just  a  moment  and  tell  3'ou  why  he  took  Gillespie's 
house.  He  tried  to  wash  at  that  publit  place  and  somebod}-  ran  him  away; 
there  is  no  evidence  but  that  it  is  the  real  reason,  and  at  the  last  day,  when 
the  trump  shall  sound  and  th^  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  disclosed,  you 
will  find  that  the  principal  reason  of  his  being  at  Gillespie's  was  that 
he  was  frightened  awa}'  from  that  mill-pond,  and  George  Blue  was  the  man 
that  ran  him  away,  because  George  Blue  said  he  got  there  about  half  past 
four,  and  George  said  he  did  not  see  an}^  man.  Of  that  fact  there  is  no  evi- 
dence. 

Where  is  this  defendant  next  seen  ?  It  is  at  Laurinburg.  Who  sees 
him  there?  George  Currie  sees  him.  Gentlemen  of  the  jurj-,  George  Currie 
goes  over  the  next  day  at  12  o'clock  to  carry  the  sad  tidings  that  Simeon 
Conoley  has  been  murdered.  What  condition,  now,  does  George  Currie  find 
him  in  ?  He  finds  the  prisoner  in  his  stocking-feet  and  shirt-sleeve.'i.  What 
was  he  in  his  stocking-feet  in  April  for,  at  noon?  I  will  tell  you:  he  had 
just-gotten  off  his  bed;  he  was  tired,  and  he  had  been  resting.  Where  is  he 
next  seen  ?  He  is  next  seen  in  McRae's  store.  V'hoseeshim?  Jim  Robbins. 
What  does  he  do?  He  goes  in  there  and  saj'S,  "Jim,  I  want  a  pair  of  slip- 
pers." Now,  gentlemen,  Robbins  is  a  man  of  character,  that  is  not  disputed; 
he  had  been  McDougald's  friend  from  his  boyhood,  but  what  does  he  say  ? 
"  I  want  a  pair  of  slippers."  Jim  gets  hira  the  slippers,  and  then  he  calls 
for  some  other  article  of  wearing  apparel;  it  excites  Robbins'  suspicion,  and 
he  says,  "Dan.,  who  is  dead?  What  does  Dan.  reply?  "My  tenant." 
Though  he  tried  to  create  sympathy  in  your  mind,  though  he  tried  to  con- 
vince 3'ou  that  Dan.  McDougald  and  Simeon  Conoley,  deceased,  were  like 
Damon  and  Pythias,  that  they  were  like  David  and  Jonathan,  that  they  were 
like  Ruth  and  Naomi,  that  where  one  would  go  the  other  would  follow  and 
die  and  be  buried  there,  don't  it  strike  you  as  being  exceedingly  singular 
and  strange  that  after  the  defendant  here  had  received  the  intelligence  that 
his  uncle,  this  man  that  Mr.  Shaw  says  he  loved  so  that  he  would  take  him 
to  his  bosom,  that  when  he  heard  the  sad  tidings  of  his  uncle's  death,  he 
would  say  his  tenant  was  killed?  Is  that  the  way  he  would  have  spoken 
about  it  "if  he  had  not  been  involved  in  the  crime?  Did  he  ever  tell  Jim 
Robbins  that  it  was  his  uncle?  Jim  Robbins  says  that  he  stood  in  that 
store  and  bought  that  suit  of  burial  clothes,  the  last  winding  sheet  in  which 
poor  Simeon  was  carried  to  his  long  home,  and  never  did  tell  him  that  it 
was  his  uncle.  The  book-keeper  knew  him,  and  had  a  conversation  with 
him,  but  he  never  did  tell  either  of  those  gentlemen  that  his  uncle  had  been 
killed.  Now,  what  does  Jim  Robbins  say  to  the  defendant  ?  Jim  turned  to 
him  and  said:  "Dan.,  what  is  the  matter  with  your  face,  it  looks  red?" 
Jim  Robbins  going  to  lie  about  this  thing?  Never.  Now,  gentlemen,  that 
illu.strates  to  you  this  fact,  that  Powers,  who  swore  to  you  that  there  was 
no  lampblack  on  his  face,  that  McGirt,  who  swore  that  he  did  not  see  any 
lampblack  on  his  face,  and  Sellers  could  have  been'imistaken;  Powers  might 
have  been  mistaken  for  the  reason  that  he  is  a  railroad  man,  and  they  are  accus- 
tomed to  seeing  dirt.  And  here  is  Bob  Phillips,  who  swears  that  he  noticed 
nothing  particular  about  his  face;  I  say  that  is  so,  and  I  have  nothing  to  say 
against  his  testimony;  the  whole  thing  is  this,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that 
one  man  may  have  smut  on  his  face,  a  dozen  men  may  see  the  man  and  not 
have  their  attention  arrested  by  it,  and  one  man  may  come  along  and  notice 
it.  One  is  positive  and  the  other  is  negative  testimony.  There  is  no  man 
who  swears  there  was  nothing  on  his  face,  and  several  testify  they  saw 
lampblack  on  it. 

It  is  in  evidence  here  that  previous  to  the  commission  of  this  murder  the 
defendant  was  considered  a  christian  gentleman.  Do  you  think  he  was? 
Gentlemen,  can  j^ou  believe  that  any  christian  man  would  lie?  Now,  that  is  a 
hard  word,  is  it  not,  to  say  about  the  Secretary  of  the  Sunday  School;  that  is 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  91 

a  hard  word  to  say  about  a  "  model  christian  gentleman  "  that  Dugald  Mc- 
Nair  carried  on  his  train.  Dugald  sa3's  he  don't  haul  all  model  christian 
gentlemen,  but  he  hauled  this  one.  The  defendant  sa3's  he  had  been  to 
Wilmington  Tuesday;  if  he  had  been  there  and  on  a  road  like  the  Carolina 
Central,  gentlemen,  do  you  suppose  that  he  could  not  find  some  witness 
who  would  have  stated  that  he  did  not  tell  a  falsehood  ?  Ah,  gentlemen,  you 
may  say  what  yoii  please  about  this  model  christian  gentleman;  ihe  people 
have  been  deceived  by  him,  he  don't  tell  the  truth.  George  Welsh  comes 
on  the  stand  and  J.  C.  N'ehemiah  and  saj-  the^'  came  up  that  night,  and  he  was 
not  on  the  train.  But  listen  to  Dugald  McNair:  Dugald  says  he  did  not  go 
to  Wilmington  with  him;  he  got  off  at  Alma.  We  prove  by  their  own  wit- 
nesses that  he  told  a  falsehood  about  it..  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  would  he 
state  a  falsehood  about  where  he  was  that  night  if  he  had  not  been  up  to 
some  meanness  of  this  character  ?  Now,  the  next  time  we  see  him  he  was 
at  the  house  of  the  deceased  that  Wednesday  night.  Ah,  gentlemen,  Simeon 
Conoley  has  been  murdered,  and  when  he  was  killed  his  neighbors,  John 
Wilkes  and  Sallie  Wilkes,  had  gone  over  theie,  and  when  Dan.  McDougald. 
was  sleeping  on  the  table  to  rest  himself  after  his  murderous  mission,  Sallie 
"Wilkes  was  sitting  up  with  his  victim,  and  to-day  his  lawyers  are  abusing 
her  for  those  good  works;  that  is  a  nice  waj'  to  treat  people.  Simeon  vvn«< 
murdered.  The  neighbor  folk  were  gathered  there  sitting"  up  with  liis 
corpse,  and  the  next  news  we  know  the  lawyers  are  here  abusing  them.  That 
is  mighty  poor  pav  for  a  neighbor's  love;  it  is  mighty  poor  pay.  Sallie 
Wilkes  sajs  that  Dan  jNIcDougald  got  there  at  12  o'clock  that  night,  and 
what  does  he  do  ?  He  goes  in  and  sits  down  and  says:  '  Suliie.  we  will 
never  get  any  clue  to  this  thing."  Was  not  that  funnj'?  McDougald  goes 
out  there  at  night,  and  when  he  sits  down  to  discusss  this  terrible  crime,  in- 
stead of  saying,  "  .^unt  Lizzie,  ^  must  go  out  \"onder  in  the  morning  and 
measure  those  tracks,  we  must  search  these  premises,  and  do  everything  in 
the  world  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  perpetrators  of  this  crime  to  jus- 
tice, in  the  morning  before  the  burial  we  must  engage  counsel,  we  must  call 
in  the  neigbors,"  hear  what  he  does  say,  "  this  is  a  mystery;  we  will  never 
know  the  truth  of  it."  Is  not  that  singular?  Here  is  this  man,  whose 
uncle  was  murdered,  shot  down  like  a  dog,  shot  down  by  an  assassin  under 
cover  of  the  night,  this  man  who  loved  him  like  a  brother,  instead  of  trying 
to  hunt  up  the  perpetrators  of  the  crime,  sa3-s,  "  we  will  never  get  anj-  clue 
to  it."  The  funeral  comes  off  next  day.  What  does  he  tell  John  Archie 
Currie?  Mr.  Currie  said  to  him,  "Let  us  go  out  here  and  take  a  seat." 
McDougald  replied,  "I  am  tired  and  want  to  sit  in  the  bugg\%"  and  McDou- 
gald gets  up  in  the  buggy.  Sa\s  i\Ir.  Currie,  "McDougald,  do  ^-ou  know 
an\-bod\'  who  has  got  a  motive  for  doing  this  thing  ?  "  "  No,  I  don't,  I  don't 
know  an3'body  that  has  got  any  motive  for  t*liis  thing."  It  is  in  evidence 
here  that  all  this  trouble  between  Millard  Moore  and  Conole3-  had  been  fixed 
up,  and  the  ver3^  next  da3'  McDougald  sa3-s  there  is  no  motive  for  it. 

Where  is  the  next  scene?  It  is  on  the  train.  Where  is  he  going?  Ah, 
that  same  conscience  of  his  is  driving  him  again.  Going  down  to  Wilming- 
ton. He  gets  on  the  train  and  meets  Mr.  McBride.  Have  30U  heard  any- 
bod3'  say  an3'thing  against  Jim  McBride's  character  ?  He  is  as  good  a  man  as 
Robeson  count3'  affords,  he  is  as  good  a  man  as  an3^  man  on  that  jut3-,  or 
any  lawyer  or  anybod3'  else.  What  does  Jim  McBride  sa3'  ?  He  got  on  the 
train  at  Lumberton  and  saw  ^McDougald  and  said  to  him,  "  INIr.  McDougald, 
I  want  to  have  a  little  talk  with  you,  sit  down  bv'  me;  have  3-ou  got  auN-  clue 
as  to  who  killed  3-our  uncle?"  "Well,  3-es,  my  father  has,  but  he  won't 
give  his  name."  Ah,  gentlemen,  I  am  sorr3'  for  his  father  and  sorry  for  his 
mother,  a  better  and  a  more  honest  people  are  not  in  our  countrv'  than  Mr. 
McDougald  and  his  wife,  I  have  nothing  in  the  world  to  sa3-  against  them. 
"  Mr.  McDougald,  I  am  in  S3-mpath3^  with  3'ou  in  this  movement."  j\Ic- 
Bride  told  him,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3-,  that  he  was  his  friend;  what  does 
McDougald  tell  him?  "It  is  a  myster3^  which  can  never  be  explained." 
Every  time  a  friend  comes  to  him  and  offers  him  a  helping  hand,  he  tells  him 
it  is  a  m3ster3- that  he  cannot  fathom.  What  else  does  he  ask?  He  asks 
eim  one  other  question,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  shows  guilt.     "  Mr.  Mc- 


92  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

Bride,  can  a  man  be  convicted  on  circumstantial  evidence?  "  He  goes  right 
on,  McBride  gets  off  the  train  at  Lumberton  and  McDougald  goes  on  down 
to  Wilmington,  and  as  that  train  steams  in  another  steams  out.  Who  is  on 
that  train  as  it  steams  out  ?  Why,  J.  C  Mercer;  he  says  McDougald  jumped 
off  one  train  as  it  steamed  into  Wilmington  and  got  on  the  other  as  it  steams 
out.  What  was  he  doing?  He  was  running  there  from  his  conscience.  I 
tell  you,  conscience  is  a  terrible  thing.  What  did  David  sa}^  after  he  had 
taken  Bathsheba  to  his  illicit  love  and  had  had  her  husband  slain  in  battle? 
What  did  he  say  ?  "  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning  and  fly  into  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  thou  art  there;  if  I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou  art 
there;  lo,  if  I  go  down  into  hell,  behold  thou  art  there."  It  was  his  con- 
science lashing  him.  What  did  Mr.  McBride  tell  him?  He  told  him  to  take 
those  clothes.  He  goes  and  gets  tThiem.  When  does  he  get  them?  Next 
Wednesday.  Now,  Judge  MacRae  says  he  showed  those  clothes  to  Mac  Mc- 
Kinnon,  and  that  is  proof  certain  that  he  was  not  connected  with  the  clothes. 
Nothing  wrong  with  that.  Now,  Judge,  I  will  tell  you  why  he  showed  them 
to  7vlac:  it  had  not  obtained  currency  that  Dan.|McDougald  was  suspected,  but 
just  as  soon  as  Dan.  McDougald  is  suspected  of  having  committed  this 
crime,  the  clothes  vanished  from  human  sight.  Ah,  those  clothes  are  dam- 
aging against  this  defendant.  He  goes  to  John  Conoley's  house  and  carries 
the  clothes  with  him.  Before  he  goes  there  he  meets  Henry  Phillips;  Henr}'- 
Phillips  says,  "Mr.  McDougald,  I  would  like  to  see  those  clothes.  Maybe  I 
can  give  you  some  evidence."  Did  he  show  them  to  him  ?  No,  he  did  not. 
When  Mr.  Hodgins  went  to  him  and  asked  him  about  those  clothes,  did  he 
show  them  to  hi,m  ?  No,  he  did  not.  He  went  and  saw  Duncan  A.  McBr\'de, 
and  he  said  "Look  here,  McDougald,  the  man  that  got  on  at  the  water  tank  is 
supposed  to  be  the  man  that  got  off  at  Shandoii  and  then  went  and  killed 
your  uncle,  and  j^ou  are  supposed  to  be  tl:u|t  man."  The  clothes  have  never 
been  seen  since,  except  at  Conoley's  hous? 

Let  us  see  what  Neill  Conoley  says.  He  tells  you  that  the  clothes  got 
there  that  night,  he  saw  them  accidentally;  that  he  went  to  the  house  where 
Dan.  McDougald  and  his  father  were  and  asked  him,  "shall  I  take  these 
clothes  in  the  house?  "  But  his  father  said  no,  there  would  be  no  danger 
out  there,  let  them  stay.  Mr.  Shaw  thinks  that  won't  do,  because  he  is  say- 
ing here  in  the  presence  of  the  defendant  to  let  those  clothes  stay  out  there; 
that  is  the  evidence,  going  to  let  them  stay  out  there,  exposed  to  the  public; 
so  he  came  back  and  said  that  his  father  wanted  them  locked  up,  put  in  the 
hay-loft, — something  like  that.  They  never  did  get  into  the  ha^'-loft,  for  the 
next  morning  the  clothes  were  gone.  What  does  he  tell  Charlie  Purcell — 
Dan.  McDougald — before  he  left  there,  knowing  tho-e  clothes  were  lost? 
Told  Charlie  Purcell  that  he  forgot  to  take  them  out  of  the  buggy.  Is  not 
that  what  Charles  A.  Purcell  "testified  to?  Charles  A.  Purcell  testifies  that 
he  said  that  he  forgot  to  take  them  out  of  the  road-cart.  Does  he  stop  there, 
gentlemen  ?  No,  he  makes  another  statement  about  those  clothes;  he  saye 
thev  are  going  to  be  at  the  trial.  If  they  are  here,  I  have  not  seen  them,  or  at 
any  trial;  it  is  in  evidence  here  that  the  clothes  have  never  come  to  light. 
The  Deputy  Sheriff  sa3^s  that  the  defendant  told  him  that  the  clothes  would 
be  at  the  trial  and  that  they  were  at  that  time  in  Mr.  Shaw's  office.  Why 
was  it  that  you  told  Purcell  that  j-ou  forgot  to  take  them  out  ?  Why  was  it 
you  went  and  told  D.  D.  Livingston  that  the  clothes  would  be  at  the  trial 
and  that  the}^  were  in  your  lawyer's  office,  if  \'ou  knew  the}'  were  not  there? 
Why  was  it?  When  he  got  those  clothes,  where  did  he  carr}' them  ?  Did 
he  show  those  clothes  to  his  father;  he  kept  them  at  his  father's  home  for 
days  and  days  and  his  father  has  never  seen  them,  and  his  mother  never  saw 
them.  That  was  the  same  package  he  was  peddling  with  the  day  he  was  on 
his  way  to  Shandon. 

He  goes  on  back  to  Laurinburg,  and  the  next  time  he  boards  the  train  is 
at  the  water  tank.  Oh,  gentlemen,  there  does  seem  to  be  a  strange  affinity 
betvveen  Dan.  McDougald  and  water  tanks.  If  he  was  a  Baptist  I  would 
not  be  a  little  surprised,  but  I  believe  it  is  in  evidence  here  that  he  was  a 
Presbyterian.  He  takes  the  train  at  the  water  tank  when  he  goes  over 
to  do  his  bloody  work    when  he  gets   through,   he  takes  the  train  at  the 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  93 

water  tank  again.  And  where  does  he  go?  He  goes  from  Laurinburg  to 
Rockingham,  from  Rockingham  to  Charlotte,  from  Charlotte  to  Lynchburg, 
from  Lynchburg  to  St.  Louis,  from  St.  Louis  to  Kansas  City,  from  Kansas 
City  to  Washington,  Kansas,  and  from  there  to  Oregon.  For  what?  He 
savs  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  a  lawsuit  with  Millard  Moore.  That 
is  the  reason  he  gave.  Judge  MacRae  says  that  he  fled  the  country  till  he 
could  return  and  establish  his  innocence.  Oh,  gentlemen,  he  was  gone 
months;  would  it  take  three  months  to  establish  where  he  was  that  night? 
Was  that  what  he  fled  for  ?  Judge  MacRae,  have  you  properly  represented 
your  client  here;  this  man,  who  according  to  Mr.  John  D.  Shaw,  Jr.,  had 
friends  in  abundance  and  money  in  abundance?  who  on  account  of  his 
social  position  could  utterly  crush  poor  Millard  Moore — fleeing  to  keep  out 
of  a  lawsuit  with  Millard  Moore!  He  was  fleeing  because  that  conscience 
was  still  after  him.  Yes,  gentlemen,  it  was  the  lashing  of  his  conscience, 
because  he  liad  been  trained  up  in  a  household  where  he  had  been  taught 
what  was  right  and  what  was  wrong;  his  con.science  was  lashing  him  when 
he  fled,  it  followed  him  in  his  flight,  and  will  lash  him  until  the  last  day, 
when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  sliall  be  disclosed.  Do  you  not  remember, 
away  back  in  the  first  century,  when  in  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  upon  one  oc- 
casion, a  man  rushed  in,  and  falling  down  at  the  feet  of  the  piiests  cast  thirty 
pieces  of  silver  there.  Who  was  it  ?  It  was  Judas;  but  the  priest  reproved 
him.  and  his  conscience  drove  him  out  to  a  tree  in  the  groves,  which  were 
(rod's  first  temples,  and  there  he  hanged  himself  It  was  a  guilt}-  conscience 
running  Dan.  McDougald,  and  not  Millard  Mooie.  That  was  what  was  the 
matter. 

(Tentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  heard  a  great  deal,  as  I  have  said  to  you, 
about  this  blood  thirstv  prosecution  It  has  been  charged  here,  it  came  from 
Mr.  vShaw,  that  the  State  was  trying  to  steal  a  verdict  from  you.  That  was  an 
insult  to  your  intelligence.  The  Hon.  Alfred  Rowland  and  Col.  McLean 
appear  at  the  bar  for  the  good  people  of  Robeson  county;  is  it  possible,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  that  the  good  people  of  Robeson  county  are  so  lost  to 
every  feeling  ot  humauit}'  and  so  thirst\'  for  the  blood  of  any  man  that  they 
will  hire  counsel  to  prosecute  an  innocent  man  ?  If  his  Honor,  who  sits 
upon  the  Bench,  had  discovered  that  the  vState  of  North  Carolina  was  trying 
to  convict  an  innocent  man,  you  would  have  seen  this  cause  stopped 
long  ago.  The  gentlemen  ought  to  bring  forth  "fruits  meet  for  repentance." 
It  was  all  right  to  take  Millard  Moore  and  incarcerate  him  in  jail;  it  was  all 
right  to  take  John  Kelly  and  put  him  in  jail;  it  waib  all  right  for  this  same 
counsel  to  be  there  at  Mill  Prong  and  prosecute  them,  but  when  it  comes  to 
prosecuting  a  man  of  position  and  influence  it  won't  do.  That  is  about  the 
sum  and  substance  of  their  argument.  Why,  I  ask  you  to  remember,  gen- 
tlemen, that  Judge  MacRae's  whole  argument  was  not  that  this  defendant 
was  not  guilty,  but  that  he  would  try  and  raise  a  doubt  in  your  mind  on 
.some  point.  No,  sirs,  he  did  not  attempt  to  prove  to  ymi  that  his  client 
was  not  guilty;  he  says.  "I  will  raise  a  doubt  about  this."  Mr.  Shaw 
pursued  exactly  the  same  course.  Have  either  one  of  them  come  out  and 
made  a  fair,  square,  open  defence  of  not  guilty  ?  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
it  has  not  been  heard  from  the  lips  of  counsel;  it  was  heard  only  from  the 
defendant  when  he  entered  his  formal  plea  and  said  he  was  not  guilty  of  this 
felon  V  and  murder  as  charged  in  the  bill  of  indictment. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  come  to  discuss  the  testimony-  of  Mrs.  Effle  Conoley. 
I  have  a  very  great  respect  for  old  age,  and  I  am  not  going  to  sa^-  one  word 
against  Mrs.  ICIlie  Conoley,  not  a  word,  but  before  I  get  through  I  shall 
have  something  to  say  about  -somebod}'  else.  Mrs.  Eflie  Conoley  is  an  old, 
decrepit,  infirm  woman  eight3'-five  years  old.  The  sands  in  the  hour-glass 
of  her  life  are  about  run  out,  and  methinks  she  can  already  feel  upon  her 
wasting  brow  the  breath  of  the  eternal  morning;  thirt\'-three  years  palsied, 
twelve  upon  her  bed.  Who  saw  this?  Three  people:  Elizabeth  Conoley, 
Edwin  C  )noley,  and  ifrs.  Effie  Conoley  says  she  saw  the  man.  Why  was 
it.  I  ask  you.  that  the  defendant  in  this  ca.se  and  his  cousel  put  uj)  Effie 
Conoley?  They  stood  by  the  old  palsied  grandmother's  side,  and  at  the 
vjry  risk  of  sending  her  to  her  last  resting  place,  the\-  had  her  hauled  up 


94  The  Trial  of  H.  A.  MeDougald 

into  the  court.  What  was  it  for?  They  knew  there  is  one  touch  of  nature 
"which  makes  the  whole  world  kin."  They  knew  that  down  there 
in  the  breast  of  ever}'  one  of  you  there  was  a  heart;  they  knew  that  j^ou  were 
human;  they  thought  when  they  brought  the  poor  old  grandmother  up  here, 
and  she  told  her  story  about  this  tragedy,  that  it  would  so  touch  your  hearts 
that  out  of  sympathy  j-ou  would  let  her  grandson  go.  That  is  what  they 
thought,  that  is  what  the  defendant  thought;  that  is  the  purpose  for  which 
they  brought  this  poor  old  woman  in.  Now,  what  is  her  testimony  ?  Her 
testimony  is  simply  this,  that  she  saw  the  man  come  there.  On  ex- 
amination she  says  it  was  a  negro;  she  saj'S  that  she  had  seen  one  man 
who  looked  like  him,  but  she  was  satisfied  that  that  negro  was  not  the 
man  who  did  it.  That  corroborates  my  former  position,  that  it  was  a 
colored  man  who  killed  Conoley — a  man  in  disguise;  she  says  she  saw  him 
walk  up,  and  that  it  was  not  Dan.  MeDougald.  I  have  no  doubt  but 
that  the  old  woman  believed  it,  but  if  Jim  Robbins,  his  life-long  companion, 
could  not  recognize  him  when  blacked  in  the  concert,  how  was  she  going  to 
recognize  him  in  the  dark  and  at  night?  If  all  these  witnesses  in  the  con- 
cert could  not  recognize  him,  in  the  name  of  high  heaven,  could  his  poor  old 
grandmother  recognize  him  ?  That  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  old 
lady's  testimony.  She  says  she  saw  him,  and  of  course  she  swears  that  it 
was  not  Dan.  MeDougald. 

No  testimony  has  been  introduced  for  your  consideration  so  damaging 
as  the  uncontradicted  admission  which  the  prisoner  made  to  Maj.  MacRae 
on  their  return  from  Oregon.  He  told  the  Major  that  it  would  be  a  difficult 
thing  to  prove  where  he  was  the  night  this  terrible  crime  was  perpetrated. 
He  at  that  time,  for  once  in  his  life,  spoke  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness. 
No  human  eye  looked  upon  this  defendant,  to  know  him,  from  the  time  he 
disguised  himself  as  a  negro  parson  near  Shandon  until  the  next  morning 
at  the  cabin  home  of  poor  Edgar  Gillespie  near  Maxton.  There  is  one  eye 
which  saw  him.  He  was  seen  by  the  all-seeing  eye  of  that  great  Being  who 
spake  and  this  world  with  its  mountains,  hills,  valleys  and  moving  streams 
Sprang  into  existence.  He  was  seen  by  the  eye  of  that  God  in  heaven  to 
which  he  had  so  often  lifted  up  his  unholy  hands  in  prayer.  He  was  seen 
by  Him  who  is  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead,  and  who  at  the  last  day 
will  remind  him  of  this  bloody  crime.  He  may  possibly  escape  the  ver- 
dict of  this  jury,  but  there  is  another  great  tribunal  before  which  he  must 
appear.  When  time  shall  be  no  more,  when  this  globe  and  all  other 
moving  and  fixed  planets  shall  come  to  give  up  their  dead,  and  the  billions 
sleep  ng  in  their  bosoms  shall  be  called  upon  at  the  bar  of  God's  judgment 
gate  to  account  for  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  you,  sir,  will  see  written  on 
a  large  white  scroll,  in  letters  of  blood,  Daniel  MeDougald  killed  poor  Simeon 
Conoley. 

This  defendant  not  only  fails  to  account  for  his  whereabouts  on  the  night 
of  the  2ist  of  April  last,  but  he  also  declines  to  let  you  be  informed  as  to 
where  he  was  all  day  Tuesday. 

Is  it  not  very  remarkable  indeed  that  this  defendant,  whose  life  previous 
to  this  charge  had  been  so  exemplary,  was  totally  unable  to  account  for  his 
whereabouts  Tuesday  and  Tuesday  night  ?  The  conclusion  of  his  guilt  is 
irresistable. 

Hear  me,  do  his  lawyers  argue  his  innocence  ?  No.  They  say  prove  it 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  Did  he  deny  his  guilt  to  the  High  Sheriff  in 
Oregon  ?  No.  Did  he  deny  his  guilt  to  the  officers  of  the  State  of  North 
Carolina  who  brought  him  back  to  his  native  State?  No.  Nay,  more  than 
that,  when  his  friends  called  on  him  in  jail,  and  the  companions  of  his  youth 
and  his  former  partner  in  business,  Robert  D.  Phillips,  met  him  there,  did 
he  deny  his  guilt  or  proclaim  his  innocence?  No.  He  was  as  dumb  as  the 
tombs. 

Much  has  been  said  about  his  previous  good  character.  The  truth  is  he 
was  a  whited  sepulcher.  His  own  friends  convict  him  of  falsehood,  and 
neither  his  counsel  or  any  one  else  will  deny  that  proposition.  If  he  was  a 
liar  he  was  not  what  he  represented  himself  to  be;  if  he  was  not  what  he  rep- 
resented himself  to  be  he  was  a  whited  sepulcher,  and  if  he  was  a  whited 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  95 

sepulcher  he  had  no  character,  and  if  he  had  no  character  he  would  not  for 
one  moment  hesitate  to  take  the  life  of  his  fellow-man  to  rob  an  insurance 
company  of  five  thousand  dollars. 

So  much,  arentlemen  of  the  jury,  for  the  evidentiary  matters  in  this  mat- 
ter between  the  State  of  North  Carolina  and  the  prisoner  D.  A.  McDougald. 
INIy  distinguished  associate,  'Sir.  N.  A.  McLean,  was  exhaustive  and  elabor- 
ate in  his  opening,  and  I  congiatulate  him  upon  the  fairness  of  his  presenta- 
tion of  the  case  for  the  State.  It  would  not  be  in  good  taste  for  me  to 
discuss  the  evidence  so  much  in  detail  as  he  has  done,  and  it  would  be  a 
useless  consumption  of  your  time. 

You  are  gentlemen  of  intelligence,  and  I  need  not  remind  you  that  the 
evidence  in  this  case  is  purelj^  circumstantial  in  its  nature..  Therefore  it  is 
eminentl}-  proper  and  important  that  I  should  have  something  to  saj'  on  the 
relative  value  of  direct  or  indirect  or  circumstantial  evidence.  It  has  been 
said  by  the  most  learned  authorities  on  the  question  that  circumstances  are 
inflexible  proofs:  that  witnesses  may  be  mistaken  or  corrupted,  but  things 
can  be  neither.  Paley  saj-s  circumstances  cannot  lie:  that  a  concurrence  of 
well-authenticated  circumstances  composes  a  stronger  ground  of  as.surance 
than  positive  testimony.  Lord  Chief  Baron  Macdonald  sa^s  that  when  cir- 
cumstances connect  themselves  with  each  other  so  as  to  carrj-  convic- 
tion to  the  minds  of  a  jurN-  it  is  proof  of  the  most  satisfactory  sort.  It  is 
almost  impossible  for  a  variety  of  witnesses,  speaking  to  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances, so  to  concert  a  story  as  to  impose  upon  a  jur\'  b\'  a  fabrication.  But 
to  settle  the  matter  in  \our  minds  the  State  now  asks  his  Honor  to  charge 
the  jury  that  if,  upon  this  evidence,  although  it  abounds  only  in  circum- 
stances, yet,  if  it  carries  conviction  to  your  minds  of  the  defendant's  guilt, 
you  shall  return  a  verdict  occordingU'. 

And  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  my  labors  in  this  case  are  about  to 
close.  The  time-piece  to  j-our  left  admonishes  me  that  for  near  two  hours  I 
have  been  favored  with  3'our  attention.  The  State's  case  will  be  again  pre- 
sented by  two  gentlemen  of  marked  ability  and  they  will  discuss  the  motive 
the  defendant  had  for  the  perpetration  of  this  deed. 

The  heart  of  every  reflecting  man  in  Richmond  county,  the  home  of  the 
defendant's  adoption,  burns  within  his  breast  in  the  contemplation  of  this 
terril)le  crime.  The  little  Scotch  village  of  Laurinburg  shudders  to  remem- 
ber that  she  has  harbored  a  human  being  capable  of  committing  a  crime  so 
horrible  and  so  revolting.  It  has  no  parallel  in  the  past,  and  if  you  will  do 
your  duty  the  future  will  not  afford  another. 

In  conclusion,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  give  j'ou  the  honest  assurance 
that  the  performance  of  this  duty  has  brought  me  no  pleasure,  but  I  intended 
from  the  beginning  to  prosecute  the  prisoner  fearlessly,  vigoroush-  and 
fairly.  My  "  conscience  is  void  of  offence."  I  prosecute  him  in  the  name  of 
.God,  and  I  speak  in  all  reverence,  whose  commandment  he  has  set  at  naught; 
I  pnxsecute  him  in  the  name  of  North  Carolina,  whose  statute  he  has  vio- 
lated; I  prosecute  him  in  the  name  of  Robeson  count}-,  for  robbing  her  of  her 
citizen;  I  prosecute  him  in  the  name  of  my  own  home,  whose  good  name  he 
has  tarnished;  and  I  believe  that  you  will  say  by  your  verdict  that  the  perpe- 
trator ot  this  most  horrible  murder  shall  pay  the  penalty  of  the  law  which 
he  has  violated. 


96 


The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 


CAPT.  W.  S.  NORMENT. 
of  Luinbertoa. 


CaPT,    W.   S.    NoRMENT — FOR   THE   DEFENSE. 

May  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

The  counsel  who  has  just  addressed  you,  and  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat,  closed  his  argument  bv  stating 
that  he  performed  his  duty  with  a  heavy  heart.     His 
reasons  for  it,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  he  did  not  give 
you ;  he  leaves  it  to  you  to  guess.     I  stand  here  differ- 
ent from  the  counsel  on  the  other  side;  I  stand  here 
in  behalf  of  this  unfortunate  prisoner  at  the  bar;  I 
stand  here  with  no  heavy  heart;  I  stand  here  to  speak 
for  him.     I  come  to  thank  you,   and  as  one  of  his 
counsel  am  grateful  to  you   for  the  patient  hearing 
you  have  given  his  cause.     It  is  the  most  important 
event  of  his  life,  and  we  ask  you,  and  we  know  you 
will  give  to  his  cause  your  best  endeavor.     Now,  with- 
out asking  anything  further,  as  we  have  been  nearly 
two  weeks  trying  this  cause,  I  shall  come  to  what  I 
have  to  say  in    this    case  and  promise  you  not   to 
keep  you  here  very  long. 
Now,  in  all  my  practice,  in  all  my  connection  with  criminal  causes  tried 
in  this  State,  with  an  experience  as  Solicitor  for  four  years  in  the  district,  I 
say  to  you  that  I  have  never  known  a  crime  committed  like  this  without  a 
motive.     So  the  first  inquiry  for  you  is  to  see  if  there  is  a  motive  underlying 
this  mxirder.     I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  to  you  that  the  man  who  murdered 
Simeon  Conoley  on  the  21st  of  April,  1891,  was  impelled  by  a  motive  as  deep, 
as  dark  as  the  devil  could  suggest  or  implant  in  human  breast.     A  motive 
not  such  as  is  implanted  in  the  breast  of  a  christian  man,  but  the  motive  of  a 
villain,  of  a  man  used  to  and  steeped  in  crime.     Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if 
the  defendant  at  the  bar  had  such  a  motive,  let  us  in  the  light  of  this  evidence 
here — because  that  is  the  only  place  that  we  can  go  to  find  the  motive — see 
what  it  is.     Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  State  in  this  case  contends  that 
the  motive  is  shown  from  the  fact  that  a  policy  of  insurance  was  issued;  they 
say  that  the  motive  is  shown  from  this.     Let  us  see  how  it  is.     There  was  a 
policy  issued,  not  in  behalf  of  the  defendant,  for  I  beg  you  to  understand  that 
a  policy  of  insurance  was  issued  by  this  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance 
Company  on  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley,  but  in  favor  of  his  sister,  Margaret 
E.  Conoley.     Now,  gentlemen,  looking  at  it  from  this  on,  looking  at  the 
issuing  of  this  policy,  can  you  say  that  there  was  a  motive?     But  they  say 
the  policv  was  not  only  issued,  but  it  was  issued  at  the  expense  of  the  de- 
fendant at  the  bar,  that  he  is  the  man  that  had  it  issiied  by  Roper,  from. 
South  Carolina.     What  is  the  evidence?     Why,  they  introduce  a  postal  card 
here,  and  they  introduce  a  letter  connected  with  this  policy  ot  insurance, 
they  say,  and  they  connect  him  with  it  in  that  way.     How,  gentlemen,  how 
does  that  evidence  connect  him  with  it  in  any  way  in  the  world,  except  that 
he  says  to  these  insurance  men  that  Simeon  Conoley  has  made  an  arrangement 
with  him  to  pay  the  premium  on  the  policy?     That  is  everything  in  the 
world  this  policy  shows,  and  I  ask  you  if  you  can  manufacture  a  motive  out 
of  that? 

Well,  the  next  thing  that  they  contend  shows  a  motive  is  that  he  was 
the  owner  of  the  place,  and  that  he  killed  him  for  the  purpose  of  getting  not 
only  possession  of  the  place,  but  in  some  way  this  |s,ooo  policy.  Now, 
there  was  some  evidence — I  intend  to  deal  fairly  with  you  in  this  case  if  I 
can — there  was  some  evidence  that  there  was  a  mortgage  on  his  farm; 
there  was  some  evidence  that  that  mortgage  had  been  traded  to  some 
gentleman  here  in  the  town  of  Fayetteville.  and  that  the  defendant  at  the 
Bar  had  taken  that  mortgage  up.  Would  he  kill  him  for  that?  Was  that 
the  vi'ay  to  get  possession  of  that  land?  Why  could  he  not  have  come  into 
the  courts  any  day  and  foreclosed  his  mortgage  if  he  wanted  to  get  posses- 
sion of  the  land,  if  he  desired  possession  of  the  land  on  which  his  uncle  and 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  -  97 

aunt  lived.  That  won't  do,  gentlemen.  What  next?  Did  a  motive  exist 
because  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  have  that  $5,000?  Is  it  in  evidence  here 
to  show  you  that  his  financial  condition  was  such  that  he  not  only  needed 
but  must  have  that  $5,000?  Not  a  word  of  evidence  of  that  sort,  but,  upon  the 
contrary,  every  witness  that  spoke  about  this  man  told  you  about  his  finan- 
cial condition,  says  that  he  was  worth  some  $5,000,  and  that  he  was  a  good 
liver.  So  we  see  that  no  motive  has  been  shown,  or  could  be  shown,  con- 
necting the  defendant  with  the  murder  of  this  man  Simeon  Conoly;  and  un- 
til the  motive  is  shown,  not  by  inference,  not  by  suggestion,  not  by  the  im- 
agination of  counsel,  out  by  proof  positive  and  unmistakeable,  we  shall  ask 
you  to  say  that  some  other  man  than  the  defendant,  D.  A.  McDougald,  did 
.that  murder  that  night. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  heard  a  good  deal  of  the  murderer 
and  of  the  time  of  night  in  which  the  murder  was  said  to  have  been  commit- 
ted. I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  one  fact  in  this  ca.se,  a  matter  in  which 
I  think  I  have  a  right  to  speak,  a  matter  which  is  addressed  to  you,  a  matter 
for  you  above  all  others  in  the  world,  and  that  is  the  fict  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  State  to  give  to  you  not  only  the  name  but  the  evidence  from  the 
mouths  of  every  witne.ss  that  knows  an5thing  about  this;  not  only  that,  but 
it  is  their  dutj-  above  all  others  to  put  on  a  witness  that  was  at  the  scene  of 
the  murder.  Now,  why  have  not  they  put  this  witness  on?  It  has  been 
held  up  to  us  time  and  again  that  Margaret  Conoley  and  Ed.  Conoley  were 
in  the  court  house,  and  you  have  not  put  them  on.  Why  did  not  they  put 
them  on  and  give  you  the  benefit  of  this  whole  testimony'  ?  If  thej-  intended 
to  deal  fairU'  with  30U,  if  they  intended  this  whole  thing  should  come  out, 
then  these  witnesses  who  were  at  the  scene  of  the  murder  would  have 
been  brought  before  you,  and  you  would  have  had  the  whole  murder  ex- 
plained. But  the}'  did  not  do  it.  and  there  is  a  reason  for  it;  it  did  not  count 
for  their  benefit;  they  would  not  swear  what  they  wanted  them  to  swear  in 
this  ca.se,  that  the  defendant,  D.  A.  McDougald,  was  the  man  there  that  night, 
and  they  were  peremptorily  turned  oft'.  Now,  was  iMcDougald  the  man  that 
murdered  Simeon  Conoley  ?  That  is  the  question.  Was  he  there  that  night, 
and  was  he  the  man  that  deliberatelj-,  on  that  occasion,  murdered  his  uncle, 
Simeon  Conoley  ?  Did  he  do  it  ?  If  he  was  the  man,  it  was  the  most  un- 
natural and  unreasonable  thing  that  I  have  ever  heard  of  in  my  life.  With 
the  kindest  feelings  existing  between  them,  going  over  there,  taking  care 
of  them  in  their  old  age,  in  supplying  them  with  the  daily  wants  of  life,  that 
he,  without  a  motive  and  without  a  cause,  all  at  once  should  steep  his  hands 
in  the  blood  of  Simeon  Conoley,  is  something  I  do  not  understand  and  never 
expect  to,  and  I  do  not  believe  you  understand  it;  it  is  unnatural,  it  is  un- 
reasonable. 

Well,  now,  where  was  he  on  this  morning  of  the  21st  of  April  ?  Every- 
body agrees  that  he  was  at  Laurinburg,  and  the  evidence  is  undisputed  that 
he  took  the  train  that  morning  at  Laurinburg  and  traveled  down  on  that 
road,  we  say  to  Alma,  stopping  tor  a  few  minutes  at  Maxton  as  the  freight 
train  passed  down.  There  is  also  a  freight  train  on  the  Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin 
Vallej'  Road  leaving  Maxton  at  8.35;  if  he  went  to  Ahna — and  we  sa^-  there 
can  be  no  mistake  about  that  matter — if  he  went  to  Alma  and  got  off"  there  at 
7  o'clock,  as  the  witnesses  tell  you  he  did,  and  if  5'ou  believe  further,  that  he  got 
off"  at  that  place  and  went  to  see  his  brother,  and  if  j-ou  believe  the  evidence 
of  McNair  and  the  man  with  him  that  they  saw  him  with  his  brother,  wlij- then 
we  say  that  Dan.  jSIcDougald  was  not  the  man  that  got  on  the  freight  train 
at  Maxton  at  8.35,  could  not  be,  he  was  two  miles  and  a-quarter  from  the  place; 
was  there  at  7  o'clock  with  his  brother,  to  remain  there,  as  we  contend,  until 
that  down  train  going  to  Wilmington,  that  fast  train,  should  come;  that  he  took 
that  and  went  to  Wilmington  as  has  been  stated.  If  this  is  so  the  whole 
theory  is  gone.  But  suppo.se  he  went  to  Maxton,  suppose  he  went  back  to 
Maxton,  and  was  there  that  da)'; 'we  say  it  is  not  reasonable,  it  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  evidence,  it  is  not  what  the  evidence  shows  as  to  his 
whereabouts;  but  suppose  we  take  it  for  grafted  that  he  did  go  back  to  Max- 
ton that  day,  that  he  was  there,  and  what  evidence  is  there  that  he  evei 
boarded  that   freight  train  on  the  Cape  Fear  &  Yadkin  Valley  Railroad  ? 


98  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

Not  a  witness,  not  a  white  man  in  the  town  of  Alnxton,  not  a  rcspcctnhle 
witness  have  you  ever  heard  say  that  it  was  D.  A.  McDougald  that  boarded 
that  train  that  day,  with  the  exception  of  this  witness  Lizzie  McCoy,  and 
she  swears  that  she  saw  him  at  the  tank  that  morning  before  the  train 
left,  between  eight  and  nine  o'clock;  and  that  is  the  only  evidence  identify- 
ing the  prisoner  at  the  bar  as  being  at  the  tank  that  morning  Now,  I  admit 
that  Mr.  Cole  says  there  was  a  u'an  there  with  a  duster;  that  he  had  the 
same  bundles  and  the  valise;  I  admit  that  Smith  at  the  tank  tells  ^-ou  that 
there  was  a  man  there  and  that  he  got  on  the  train,  but  neither  Mr.  Cole  nor 
the  man  at  the  tank  tells  you  that  it  was  D.  A.  INIcDongald;  they  did  not 
know  him,  and  not  a  soul  about  that  place  where  this  man  took  the  train 
identifies  him  with  Dan.  McDougald.  Lizzie  IMcCoy  does  not  say  he  took 
the  train.  But  they  say  that  he  did  get  on  that  train;  that  it  was  Capt. 
Lockam3-'s  train,  and  that  he  went  on,  and  that  Capt.  Lockamy,  according 
to  this  evidence,  sa\-s  that  a  man  was  on  there  and  that  he  went  on  to 
Wakulla  with  him  and  that  he  got  out  there,  and  we  do  not  hear  any  more  of 
him;  that  his  flagman  collected  the  fare  and  knew  more  about  who  was  on 
the  train  than  he  did;  that  this  man  was  sitting  there,  looking  on  the  floor, 
and  did  not  have  much  to  sa}-.  Who  was  it,  gentlemen  of  the  jury  ?  I  ask 
you  in  the  light  of  this  evidence,  who  was  it?  Capt.  Lockamy  says  he  does 
not  know.     Can  3'ou  say  from  this  evidence  that  it  was  D.  A.  McDougald .-' 

The  next  time  he  is  seen,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  State,  is  at  Red 
Springs;  they  .saw  him  there  without  a  doubt,  because  thev  put  a  witness  on 
the  stand  who  swore  to  it,  and  it  was  the  same  man  that  got  on  at  the  ta:nk 
at  Maxton;  but  unfortunatelj'  for  the  State  and  the  prosecutioti  in  this  case, 
the  witness  that  proved  that  fact,  Mr.  Phillips,  after  he  had  left  the  stand, 
felt  some  stinging"  of  conscience,  and  he  asked  to  be  put  back  that  he  might 
correct  his  statement,  and  he  comes  upon  the  stand  the  second  time  and 
swears  to  30U  that  he  did  not  .say  that  it  was  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  of 
April  he  saw  the  man  there,  because  he  did  not  know;  that  it  might  have 
been  after  the  murder,  that  he  could  not  tell  whether  it  was  on  the  21st  of 
April  or  not;  swore  it  to  you  positively  on  the  stand,  and  his  conscience  got 
after  him,  and  he  took  it  back.  But  we  dont't  care  whether  he  took  it  back 
or  not,  for  so  far  as  the  defense  is  concerned  it  would  be  willing  for  him  to 
take  that  stand  and  swear  to  this  thing  from  morning  till  night,  because  we 
have  got  the  proof  that  he  was  not  there  the  21st  of  April,  1891.  We  have 
shown  that  by  every  man  in  chis  place  connected  with  this  railroad  who 
knows  the  fact  that  there  was  no  special  train  out  on  that  day  on  which 
Phillips  sa3'S  he  was  fireman;  that  there  was  no  special  train  on  that  day, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  Phillips  was  working  in  the  shops  here  in  this  town. 
That  is  the  record.  Couple  that  with  the  fact  that  Phillips  saj'S  himself 
that  he  was  mistaken;  that  the  prosecution  was  mi.staken  when  he  swore 
that  it  was  on  the  21st  of  April  that  he  was  there.  Then,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  theory  falls.  Where  is  the  man  then  ?  Next  3'ou  hear  of  him  at 
Shandon.  This  old  colored  woman,  Charlotte  Dumas,  tells  you  that  he 
passed  her  house.  Who  passed  her  house?  Do  you  know?  She  says  she 
did  not.  The  next  we  hear  of  him  he  is  going  up  the  Lumberton  road 
towards  McPhail's;  and  then  you  see  McPhail,  the  depot  agent,  brought  up 
to  identify  the  man  as  McDougald,  and  he  simply  tells  you  that  he  saw  a 
man  passing  there  with  a  duster  on;  onl}  saw  his  back;  that  he  was  a  white 
man,  and  that  is  all  he  knows  about  it;  as  to  who  he  was  McPhail  did  not 
know.     Do  3'OU  ? 

Then  we  leave  there,  and  on  the  road  to  Conoley's  we  get  to  Jeff  Cobb's, 
a  good  boy,  a  man  of  character,  a  man  that  an3'body  would  believe,  and  he 
sa3'S  this  man  passed  the  road  near  Shandon,  going  in  the  direction  of  Cono- 
le3''s;  that  he  passed  him  as  he  came  up  from'his  work  to  the  road;  that  he 
onU'  saw  his  back,  and  who  he  was  he  did  not  know.  Then  3-ou  go  on  a 
little  further  and  3-0U  meet  up  with  Fannie  Mears;  she  describes  hrm;  she 
tells  3'OU  that  he  is  on  the  road  going  towards  Conoley's,  but  who  it  was, 
she  don't  know;  then  we  come  to  Smith,  the  man  who  saw  him  and 
said  he  had  white  spots  on  the  back  of  his  neck  and  on  his  hands, 
that  he  was  a  painted  man,  with  a  duster  on.     Who  was  it,  Fannie?     "I 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


don't  know,  a  qurigus  looking  man  to  me;  I  don't  know  who  it  was." 
We  move  on,  g«|j|emen  of  the  jnry,  and  pass  Mrs.  Sallie  Humphrey 
and  Neill  Smith  and  Henry  Smith,  and  they  all  say  it  is  the  same  man, 
a  man  none  of  us  knew.  So,  starting  at  the  tank,  following  that  man, 
whoever  he  ma}-  be,  who  got  on  the  train  that  morning,  if  one  did  get  on; 
take  his  de.scription  by  the  other  witnesses  who  saw  him,  and  there  is 
not  a  living  soul  on  that  road  who  mentions  that  man  as  D.  A.  McDougald, 
but  upon  the  contrar}'  saNS  it  was  a  stranger  the}-  did  not  know. 

Now.  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  have  got  down  towards  the  scene  of  the 
murder.  It  is  night  time,  ever\thing  is  still,  poor  Sim.  Conoley  is  at  his 
home  around  his  own  fireside,  with  the  famil}-  gathered  there.  Dan.  Mc- 
Dougald was  in  the  habit  of  visiting  that  home;  he  was  no  stranger  there, 
he  was  a  welcome  guest,  a  kinsman  and  a  friend.  This  old  lady  had  known 
him  from  his  cradle,  had  nestled  him  on  her  bosom  when  he  was  a  boy,  had 
followed  him  through  all  the  scenes  of  life,  was  proud  of  her  child,  thanked 
her  God — the  old  christian  grandmother — that  he  bore  the  character  he  did; 
no  stranger  there.  And  I  tell  you  that  30U  may  deface  and  ^-ou  may  oblit- 
erate a  great  many  things,  and  the  memor\-  of  an  old  christian  grandmother, 
as  age  creeps  on,  ma}-  be  taken  from  her  as  to  what  is  passing  at  the 
present,  but  as  you  go  back  to  childliood  and  to  early  life  there  is  one  thing 
that  no  mother  ever  forgot,  that  is  the  voice  of  her  child.  You  cannot  take 
that  away  from  her.  As  long  as  the  .sense  of  hearing  lasts,  she  will  know 
her  bo3''s  voice.  The  man  who  came  there  called  for  help.  Sim.  Conoley 
heard  him,  the}-  all  heard  him,  and  Sim  Conoley,  as  a  good  neighbor  would 
do,  goes  out  in  obedience  to  that  call.  Did  Sim.  Conoley  know  McDougald  .^ 
Had  he  ever  seen  him?  Why,  geiUlemen  of  the  jur3%  he  had  been  his  friend 
through  life.  He  goes  out,  meets  him  at  the  gate,  and  the  man  asks  him 
the  way  to  John  Wilkes's.  As  a  good  neighbor  he  goes  back  and  prepares 
himself  and  goes  on  to  show  him  the  road.  They  are  together  in  a  night 
with  the  moon  shining  as  bright  as  day.  and  as  the  man  pas,ses  through  the 
yard,  close  to  the  door,  the  good  old  grandmother  takes  a  look;  she  saw  him, 
Ed.  Conole}-  .saw  him,  Margaret  saw  him;  they  all  saw  him  there.  Who  was 
it?  Not  one  at  that  hou.se  that  night,  from  this  aged  grandmother  to 
the  child  Edwin,  but  what  says  it  was  not  Dan.  McDougald.  So  here  it 
is,  here  you  have  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  murdered  man  and  his  poor 
old  mother,  with  a  heart  full  of  love  for  him,  and  the\'  say  that  Dan.  Mc- 
Dougald was  not  his  murderer.  If  he  was  inhuman  and  devil  enough  to 
commit  that  deed,  5-ou  would  see  the  Conoley  family  nestled  at  the  back  6f 
the  Solicitor  pro.secuting  this  case.  You  would  see,  instead  of  the  sight 
that  you  do,  this  Conoley  family  standing  there  and  asking  for  the  life  of 
Dan.  McDougald.  And  I  say  that  this  fact  is  patent  as  any  fact  connected 
with  this  case,  that  those  who  are  interested,  those  who  have  suffered  the 
loss,  those  whose  hearts  have  been  bowed  down  in  grief,  stand  here  and  say 
the  prisoner  is  not  guilty;  and  yet  there  is  an  outside  influence  somewhere, 
in  some  shape,  helping  this  prosecution,  that  is  clamoring  for  his  blood,  and 
I  thank  my  God  that  the  prisoner  has  got  a  jury  to  try  him  outside  of  the 
atmosphere  of  this  clamor.  Thank  God,  a  jury  compo.sed  of  men  who  have 
no  interest  in  this  ca.se  except  to  do  justice  between  the  State  and  tlie  pris- 
oner at  the  Bar.  If  you  will  do  that  Dan.  McDougald  will  have  no  cause  of 
complaint  at  your  hands. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  another  fact 
in  this  ca.se  that  has  not  been  commented  on,  that  it  does  .seem  to  me  shows 
you  the  nature  of  this  prosecution.  You  will  recollect  that  they  have 
brought  proof  here  for  the  purpose  of  showing  you  that,  prior  to  this  mur- 
der— and  as  a  reason  for  a  motive — Dan.  McDougald  attempted  to  poison  his 
uncle.  Let  us  look  at  this  thing  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  for  a  few  mo- 
ments. John  Wilkes  states  that  about  four  or  five  months  before  the  mur- 
der took  place,  in  the  month  of  November  or  December  preceding,  that  Sim- 
eon Conoley  became  very  sick  on  one  morning,  came  to  him,  said  he  had 
eaten  this  candy,  gave  him  some,  and  that  he  ate  it,  ate  two  of  the  red  balls 
of  candy  that  were  given  him  by  Simeon  Conoley;  that  they  had  no  effeot 
upon  him,  there  was  no  sickness  on  his  part  that  followed  the  eating  of  this 


1 00  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougal 

cand^^  and  I  believe  some  of  the  children  ate  spine  of  it;  and  that  after  Sim. 
Conole}'  became  sick  there  was  some  evidence  that  Ud''ifrs/ Wilkes  to  throw 
the  rest  in  the  fire.  Now,  I  call  3-our  attention  to  this  matter  for  this  reason, 
to  show  you  that  after  the  murder  was  committed,  after  this  clamor  comes 
for  the  blood  of  McDougald,  that  then  they  commence  hatching  up  all  the 
incidents  of  his  life.  This  candy  poisoning,  as  it  is  spoken  of  in  this  case, 
took  place  some  four  or  five  months  before  the  murder;  3^011  have  heard  it 
described,  and  I  don't  intend  to  argue  it,  but  simpU'  to  call  3'our  attention  to 
this  fact,  that  when  that  matter  was  investigated  in  Laurinburg,  Dr.  Prince 
and  Dr.  Everington,  the  druggist,  knew  all  the  facts  that  the  str3'chninehad 
been  found  in  the  cand3'  box;  why,  it  was  made  known  all  over  the  town  of 
Laurinburg,  spread  like  wild-fire,  that  str3'chnine  had  been  found  in  the 
cand3'  box,  and  that  McDougald  had  come  there  to  examine  it,  to  ascertain 
the  facts  about  it,  for  he  had  a  note  from  home  that  his  uncle  was  poisoned 
b3'  that  cand3%  and  he  does  not  stop  until  he  goes  to  this  drug  store  to  inves- 
tigate this  matter,  and  it  was  investigated  thoroughU^  b3'  Dr.  Prince,  the 
druggist  and  Powell  Hill.  The  whole  matter  was  known,  made  public,  and 
that  was  three  months  before  this  murder.  Dr.  Prince  sa3'S  that  up  to  the 
time  of  this  murder,  including  the  time  when  this  cand3'  investigation  was 
made,  that  Dan.  iNlcDougald's  character  was  as  good  as  that  of  an3'  man  in 
the  count3^  of  Richmond. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jur3',  we  were  tied  down  to  the  date  of  the  murder,  we 
could  establish  his  character  up  to  the  time  of  this  charge;  the  State  could 
go  behind  the  charge,  the3'  could  go  back  about  this  candy  poisoning;  they 
could  ask  3'ou  if  3-ou  had  not  heard  that  this  man  vv'as  accused  of  poisoning 
his  uncle,  and  nobod3'  knows  better  than  the  coun.sel  in  this  court  room  that 
if  the\'  could  have  made  anything  out  of  that  case  the5'  would  have  asked 
those  questions.  But  is  that  all  ?  Dr.  Everington,  the  druggist,  the  owner 
of  that  cand3',  comes  upon  the  stand  and,  in  describing  what  took  place  there 
in  this  investigation,  closes  his  testimony  about  in  the  same  words  as  Dr. 
Prince,  that  including  the  cand3^  poisoning  time  Mr.  McDougald  stood  as 
high  as  any  man  in  the  county. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  unnecessar\'  for  me  to  talk  to  3'ou 
about  the  tracks,  about  the  investigation  at  the  place  of  the  murder;  there 
were  hundreds  of  tracks  made  all  over  that  field;  the  men  talking  about 
tracks  said  that  there  were  a  number  of  persons  there  before  he  got  there, 
and  that  the3'  found  the  tracks  of  the  murderer  led  across  the  field,  out  in 
the  woods  and  some  distance  from  it,  and  yet  this  man  Wilkes  sa3's  the 
prisoner  deliberately  tried  to  spoil  out  the  tracks  made  there  that  dav;  that 
he  was  walkiri^,  dragging  his  feet  along.  The  tracks  go  up  behind  the  gar- 
den and  all  around,  with  track  at  the  head  of  poor  Simeon  Conole3\  and  they 
are  tr3'ing  to  make  something  out  of  this  prejudicial  to  the  prisoner.  The 
next  step  we  take  is  that,  before  da3-  next  morning  or  about  day,  he  ap- 
peared at  the  house  of  one  Edgar  Gillespie,  a  colored  man,  and  washed,  and 
after  he  had  washed  Gillespie  saw  his  face  and  knew  him.  Well,  so  far  as 
that  evidence  is  concerned,  it  is  conceded  on  all  sides  that  Edgar  is  not  to  be 
believed;  that  if  he  was  the  onl3'  witness  in  the  case  the  counsel  who  first 
addressed  3-011  stated  he  would  give  it  up,  and  that  he  put  no  confidence  in 
his  testimon3',  that  it  was  so  completely  broken  down  that  the  jur3^  could 
not  rel3'  upon  it.  But  the3'  say  that  there  was  another  man  there  living 
near  that  place  b3-  the  name  of  Hector  Gilchrist,  and  that  Edgar  told  him 
about  it  a  da3-  or  two  afterwards;  Edgar,  although  admitted  to  be  a  man  of 
bad  character,  being  corroborated  by  Hector  Gilchrist,  they  sa3'  that  this 
jury  ought  to  believe  what  he  sa3^s.  Let  us  see  how  that  was.  He  says 
there  was  nobody  there  but  him;  that  he  was  the  only  person  about  that 
plrc2  when  McDougald  came  to  wash  that  night;  and  John  Williams  is  after- 
V  a  ds  put  upon  the  stand,  and  he  proves  that  he  was  there  that  night,  living 
in  one  end  of  the  house  and  Edgar  Gillespie  in  the  other,  and  if  Edgar  Gil- 
lespie was  there  he  never  heard  him  nor  saw  him,  and  there  was  nothing 
but  a  board  partition  between  their  rooms.  Edgar  himself  says  there  was 
not  a  soul  but  him  there;  that  when  his  wife  stayed  at  home  he  was  off; 
that  when   he   was   there  his   wife  was  away.     Stephen   McLean  is  next 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  101 

brought  upon  the  stand,  and  he  says  Gillespie  told  him  the  man  came  there, 
but  his  wife  waked  him  up.  Contradicted  twice.  Well,  now  let  us  see  what 
Hester  said  a  short  time  after  this.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Hester,  ol  good 
character,  meets  him  with  one  other  negro,  Edgar  Gillespie  and  one  other 
negro,  and  in  the  presence  of  this  other  negro  Hester  asks  him  the  question, 
"did  you  saj'  that  j'ou  knew  who  it  was  that  came  there  that  night,  or  did 
you  say  that  it  was  Dan.  McDougald?"  and  he  says,  "  no,  I  didn't;  I  didn't 
know  who  it  was."  Well,  now,  that  is  the  evidence  of  a  respectable  white 
man  who  spoke  with  him.  To  be  fair,  I  know  that  Gillespie  saj'S  he  told 
this  man  so  because  he  did  not  like  to  talk  in  a  crowd;  he  had  been  told  not 
to  talk  in  a  crowd  about  this  time.  Who  told  him  ?  I  don't  know-,  but 
there  is  the  fact.  There  was  no  crowed  there,  he  and  his  friend,  another 
negro,  together,  when  he  was  asked  this  question,  and  he  sa^-s  he  knows 
nothing  about  it 

What  is  the  next  thing?  He  is  seen  in  Maxton  on  the  next  day  wnth 
black  on  his  face:  seen  by  Herring,  seen  by  Jacob  Greenwall.  That  is  what 
the}' sa}'.  Herring  says  he  saw  him  on  the  train;  had  blacking  under  his 
eyes  and  on  the  side  of  his  neck,  and,  I  think,  in  the  creases  of  his  neck. 
Greenwall  says  he  saw  him  in  the  town  of  Maxton;  there  was  a  little  dis- 
coloration under  the  eye;  that  is  the  evidence  of  blacking  on  the  man's  face 
the  day  after  the  murder.  As  to  that  you  have  got  i\Ir.  Powers,  a  man  of 
respectability,  who  saw  him.  He  had  some  conversation  with  him,  and  he 
says  that  he  stooped  down  and  looked  him  right  in  the  eyes,  and  there  was 
no  blacking  on  him.  W.  W.  IMcGirt  swore  the  same  thing;  Mr.  Sellers 
swears  the  same  thing;  so  we  have  ihree  against  these  two,  who  say  that 
there  was  some  discoloration  on  the  face;  but  the  strangest  part  of  this  whole 
evidence  is  that  Mr.  Greenwall  saw  him  in  the  town  of  Maxton,  a  public 
place;  a  place  frequented  by  the  country  around  there,  a  place  where  the 
people  knew  McDougald;  Greenwall  says  he  saw  him  there  publicly,  there 
in  front  of  the  drug  store  in  conversation  with  some  gentlemen.  Well,  now, 
out  of  that  whole  population  of  Ma.xton,  with  the  man  sitting  there  and  con- 
versing with  gentlemen  that  knew  him  all  his  life,  that  Jacob  Greenwall  is 
the  only  witness  that  can  be  brought  here  to  prove  that  fact  does  seem  strange 
to  me.  And  then,  as  my  friend,  Judge  MacKae.  says,  when  he  got  to  Laurin- 
burgand  Mr.  Robbins  saw  him,  that  his  face  was  so  clean  he  remarked  upon 
it.  vSo,  it  does  not  make  any  difference  with  this  prosecution,  clamoring  for 
his  blood,  whether  his  face  is  black  or  clean,  the  cry  is  "crucifj' him ! 
crucify  him  !" 

I  now  desire  to  talk  to  j-ou  for  a  short  time  about  the  clothes  that  were 
fbund  at  Campbell's  Bridge,  and  I  propose  to  show  you  in  the  remarks  that 
I  shall  make  that  the  counsel  for  the  State  have  been  unfair  in  their  argu- 
ments with  legard  to  the  clothes:  Now,  it  is  undisputed  that  there  were 
some  clothes  at  Campbell's  Bridge  on  the  morning  of  the  22nd  of  April; 
how  the\'  got  there,  who  carried  them  there,  we  say  is  covered  in  mist  and 
doubt.  No  witness  has  proved  the  fact,  and  the  strongest  against  the  pris- 
oner is  mere  inference,  like  the  most  of  the  testimony  that  has  been  intro- 
duced against  him  in  this  court.  The  clothes  were  found  on  the  22nd;  the 
prisoner,  on  a  trip  to  Wilmington,  got  the  information  that  the  clothes  had 
been  found;  he  returns  home  immediatel}',  goes  to  his  home  at  Laurinburg, 
and  on  the  next  day  or  a  short  time  afterwards,  as  soon  as  he  ascertains  the 
fact  that  the  clothes  have  been  found  and  are  at  McKinnon's  mill,  he  goes 
to  the  mill  for  the  purpose  of  getting  possession  of  these  clothes  and  using 
them  in  a  trial  then  to  be  had.  It  has  been  insinuated  here  that  when  he 
reached  that  mill  he  went  into  the  house  where  the  clothes  were  and  took 
them  out  and  attempted  to  hide  them  by  throwing  them  under  the  house; 
that  IS  the  insinuation  against  him,  but  there  is  no  proof  of  it.  I  have  come 
to  a  point  now  in  this  case  when  I  want  to  appeal  to  twelve  men  who  are 
disinterested  in  this  matter.  I  want  to  appeal  to  your  recollection  of  the 
evidence  in  this  cause  in  regard  to  this  particular  matter.  How  do  3'ou  re- 
member it  ?  What  are  the  facts  ?  As  I  remember  it,  D.  A.  McDougald  came 
to  that  mill  that  day,  and  the  man  who  had  possession  of  those  clothes  saw 
him  when  he  was  coming;  George  Blue  was  there  at  the  mill  and  saw  Mc- 


102  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

Dougald  coming,  and  he  watched  him  until  he  came  up  to  where  he  was  and 
made  the  inquiry  if  he  was  the  man  that  had  theclothes  that  had  been  found. 
I  say,  the  very  nature  of  the  question  asked  shows  and  shows  conclusively 
that  D.  A.  MeDougald  never  entered  the  house  until  he  got  into  the  presence 
of  George  Blue,  and  the  accusation  that  he  got  those  clothes  to  cover  up  his 
tracks  is  nothing  more  than  an  insinuation,  and  does  not  amount  to  any- 
thing in  arriving  at  j'our  verdict;  and  I  argue  to  you  from  this  fact,  that 
when  he  and  George  Blue  went  to  get  those  clothes  that  they  were  gone,  I 
say  it  shows  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  it  shows  be3'ond  everything 
that  there  was  some  other  man  there  besides  D.  A.  MeDougald  that  da}'  in- 
terested in  those  clothes.  Think  about  it,  here  are  the  clothes  found  at  the 
bridge;  George  Blue  gets  them  in  his  possession;  MeDougald  hears  about  it, 
returns  and  goes  right  down  there;  how  in  the  name  of  .sense  could  he  tell 
where  George  Blue  had  put  the  clothes  ?  How  could  he  tell  what  disposi- 
tion had  been  made  of  the  clothes  ?  He  did  not  know  in  whose  pos.session 
thej^  were;  he  was  making  inquiry  to  find  out,  and  when  they  looked  for 
them  they  were  taken  away  from  their  place  and  hid  under  the  house.  The 
clothes  iipon  search  are  found  under  the  house,  not  by  MeDougald,  not  that 
he  knows  anj'thing  about  it,  but  found  by  Blue,  the  man  in  whose  posses- 
sion they  were;  and  then  and  only  then  is  the  first  time  that  D.  A.  MeDou- 
gald ever  put  his  hand,  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  upon  those  clothes. 
He  took  them  into  possession  then,  being  delivered  up  by  George  Blue,  and 
what  does  he  do  with  them  ?  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  this  fact.  A 
little  further  on,  what  does  he  do  with  them  ?  He  takes  them  with  the  in- 
tention, as  all  the  evidence  shows,  of  carrying  them  to  John  Conolej';  is 
there  any  secrecy  about  that  ?  Is  he  attempting  to  dispose  of  them  along  the 
road?  Is  it  his  intention  to  get  them  out  of  the  wa}'  ?  In  the  broad  open 
da}'  time  he  meets  his  friend  and  neighbor,  Mac  McKinnon,  a  gentleman  of 
high  character.  He  calls  him  out  to  his  road-cart,  and  tells  him,  "  I  have  got 
the  clothes,  come  and  look  at  them;  they  are  in  my  possession."  Does  that 
look  like  secrecy  ?  And  then,  when  he  carries  them  to  his  uncle  John  Cono- 
ley,  they  being  in  sight  in  the  road  cart,  he  gets  out  and  enters  the  house; 
the  road  cart  is  left  there,  pulled  up  under  the  shed  by  some  of  the  boys,  and 
he  and  his  uncle  John  get  into  another  vehicle  and  go  over  to  Mr.  McBride's. 
On  the  way  they  meet  up  with  Mr.  H.  H.  Hodgin. 

To  show  3'ou  the  unfairness  of  this  case  in  regard  to  all  the  testimony 
about  these  clothes  brought  out  here,  if  you  believe  that  MeDougald  had 
those  clothes  in  his  possession  there,  he  carried  them  to  John  Conoley's  that 
evening,  he  took  them  in  that  road  cart  with  him;  Mac  McKinnon  saw  them  on 
the  road,  and  he  carried  them  to  his  uncle  John's,  telling  McKinnon  that  he 
intended  to  have  them  at  the  trial  next  day.  He  swears  that.  Neill  Cono- 
ley,  one  of  the  sons  of  John,  swears  that  they  were  in  that  road  cart  when  he 
got  there;  that  they  were  left  out  there  that  night;  that  there  was  some  con- 
versation between  his  father  and  Dan.  after  their  going  into  the  house,  and 
he  told  them  to  leave  them  out  there,  nobody  ever  stole  anything  from 
tim. 

There  is  another  interested  man  in  this'  matter.  There  is  another  man, 
and  the  man  that  hid  those  clothes  at  George  Blue's  when  Dan.  ISIcDougald 
went  for  them  followed  his  tracks  to  John  Conoley's  that  night  and  got 
them  again.  I  say  it  is  reasonable  in  the  light  of  this  evidence  here;  you 
find  one  man  who  is  interested  in  disposing  of  those  clothes.  We  find  him 
at  McKinnon's  mill;  who  he  is  I  cannot  say,  but  we  find  him  there;  and  it 
is  supposed  that  he  had  knoweledge  of  the  clothes  going  into  the  possession 
of  MeDougald.  He  knew  where  MeDougald  was  going  and  he  followed  his 
tracks  that  night,  and  that  is  the  man  that  got  those  clothes.  But,  after  the 
unfairness  of  the  argument,  the  evidence  is,  that  when  MeDougald  got  to 
John  Conoley's  with  those  clothes,  that  he  left  the  road  cart  there,  and  that 
his  uncle  and  himself  went  to  D.  E.  McBryde's.  Now,  the  counsel  come  in, 
both  of  them  that  have  preceded  me,  on  the  part  of  the  State  and  say  that 
Dan.  MeDougald  did  not  have  those  clothes.  Why?  Because  he  never 
showed  them  to  D.  E.  McBride,  whom  he  met  that  evening;  that  he  never 
showed  them  to  H.  H.  Hodgin,  whom  he  met  that  evening,  when  all  the  evi- 


I 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  103 

dence  shows  that  when  he  met  Ilodyin  and  McTlride  the  clothes  were  at 
John  Conoley's.  So  it  shows  you  to  what  straits  the  prosecution  is  put  to 
make  out  this  case.     Did  D.  A.  McDoiigald  commit  this  crime  ? 

I  want  to  read  to  you  some  law  that  has  been  read  before.  I  want  to 
read  it  to  vou  because  it  is  good  law;  I  want  to  read  it  to  \'ou  because  it  is 
the  law  by  which  you  are  to  be  guided  in  coming  to  a  conclusion  in  this  case 
and  it  is  this:  "Circumstantial  evidence  is  not  only  a  recognized  and  ac- 
cepted instrumentality  in  the  ascertainment  of  truth,  but  it  is  one,  when 
properly  understood  and  applied,  highly  satisfactory  in  matters  of  the  great- 
est moment;  the  fact,  the  relation,  connection  and  combination,  should  be 
natuial,  reasonable,  clear  and  satisfactory."  In  other  words,  starting  on  the 
morning  of  the  21st  of  April  at  Maxton  and  following  all  around  the  theory 
of  the  State  to  the  scene  of  the  murder  and  back  to  Maxton  and  back  to 
Laurinlnug,  all  those  things  on  the  part  of  the  State  must  be  proved  clear 
and  convincing  to  your  minds,  and  must  be  natural  and  reasonable.  "  When 
such  evidence  is  relied  upon  to  convict,  it  should  be  clear,  convincing  and 
conclusive,  in  its  connections  and  combinations,  excluding  all  rational  doubt 
as  to  tile  prisoner's  guilt,  and  it  is  not  sutlicient  to  go  or  be  left  to  the  jury 
unless  in  some  aspect  of  it  they  might  reasonabl}'  render  a  verdict  of  guil- 
ty." Thus  tar  in  this  case  we  have  been  wandering  in  fog  and  mist,  and 
file  evidence  tends  to  throw  no  light  on  this  case,  but  to  puzzle  the  jury. 
But  I  thank  God,  that  beyond  all  this  uncertainty  and  doubt,  there  is  an 
anchor  of  safctv  for  vm  ;ind  for  the  ])n.soncr;  there  is  above  all  lliis  mist  aiid 
darkness  a  clear,  bright  and  shining  light  reflected  from  the  evidence  of  that 
old  christian  grandmother,  Mrs.  Effie  Conoley.  We  are  told  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  in  their  wanderings  through  the  wilderness,  were  led  by  a  })il 
lar  of  cloud  ijy  da\-  and  a  pillar  of  lire  by  night,  and  as  long  as  the}-  obeyed 
the  movements  of  this  cloud  they  were  under  the  hand  of  (iod  himself. 
So,  I  say  to  you  here,  if  you  will  follow  the  only  certain  light  in  this  case, 
the  light  reflected  from  the  evidence  of  this  old  christian  woman,  that  you 
will  be  helped  to  a  conclusion  that  will  not  harass  you  in  hours  to  come. 

Now,  what  is  this  evidence,  and  who  is  ]\lrs.  Conoley  ?  An  old  lady 
eighty  five  years  old,  afflicted  by  the  hand  of  Gdd,  not  able  to  move  henself. 
vShe  has  been  brought  here  to  this  court  house  to  testify  in  behalf  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  She  is  his  grandmother,  and  Simeon  Conoley,  who 
was  murdered,  was  her  son.  She  conies  here  and  tells  you  that  she  was 
there  on  the  night  of  the  murder;  that  she  heard  the  "hello  !"  at  the  gate; 
that  she  did  not  see  the  man  when  he  came  in  the  gf^te  and  went  to  the 
well,  but  as  he  passed  on  by  the  house,  it  being  a  bright  moonlight  night,  she 
had  a  good  look  at  him.  She  tells  3-011  that  it  was  a  man  taller  than  Dani 
McDougald;  she  tells  you  that  she  saw  him  plainly;  the  wind  blew  .some 
garment  that  he  had  on  and  she  saw  him  up  to  his  waist.  She  swears  to 
you  positively  that  that  man  she  saw  that  night,  and  the  man  that  accom- 
panied Sim.  Conoley  from  that  place  for  the  last  time,  was  not  the  prisoner, 
I).  A.  McDougald.  Do  you  believe  her?  Do  you  believe  that  evidence? 
You  have  been  told  not  to  believe  it,  you  have  been  told  that  it  is  an  improb- 
able story;  you  have  been  told  that  is  the  interest  an  old  grandmother  would 
have  in  her  grandson.  Do  nou  believe  it?  I  recall  to  30U  some  part  of  her 
evidence,  I  think  the  ver\'  last  words  that  she  stated  before  this  jur\-,  or  ever 
will  state  again,  she  was  asked  the  question  if  she  had  not  had  such  and 
such  a  conversation  with  INIr.  McNeill,  the  old  lad}- shook  her  head  and  said, 
"  that  won't  do;  stand  to  the  truth."  Those  are  the  last  words  that  issued 
from  her  mouth,  those  are  the  last  words  that  came  from  her  lips,  she  tells 
you  to  stand  to  the  truth;  .she  wants  the  witnesses  in  the  trial  of  this  cause 
to  tell  the  truth,  not  only  to  tell  the  truth  but  to  stand  to  the  truth.  lA'ing 
on  her  bed,  with  but  a  few  more  days  between  her  and  eternit\-,  as  it 
were,  her  dying  declaration,  she  tells  you  here  that  it  was  not  the  prisoner 
that  killed  Simeon  Conoley.  Ah,  I  tell  3-ou  that  one  of  these  chri.stian  old 
mothers,  one  who  has  had  the  hand  of  God  resting  heaviU'  upon  her;  one 
who  is  not  able  to  take  any  part  in  domestic  life;  one  whose  daih'  vocation 
is  to  lie  on  her  bed  and  look  towards  God;  one  whose  life  was  a  monument 
more  enduring  than  marble  or  brass; — will  you  disregard  such  a  witness  ? 


104  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

Will  you  do  her  such  an  injustice  ?  Will  you  call  after  her  and  tell  her  she  has 
left  behind  sucii  a  character?  I  do  not  believe  you  will  do  it.  The  counsel 
who  first  addressed  j'ou  in  this  case  uttered  some  words  in  the  closing  part 
of  his  speech  that  went  to  my  heart.  I  never  saw  this  old  lady  before,  I 
know  her  only  as  a  christian  old  mother,  but  in  the  name  of  God  let  us 
hold  up  her  character  as  long  as  she  has  'got  it,  and  not  stab  her  to  death. 
The  counsel  that  I  speak  of,  in  closing  his  remarks  in  reference  to  this  testi- 
mony, gazing  into  the  face  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  directing  the  looks  of 
the  jur\'  to  him,  asks  you  not  to  let  that  man  go  upon  the  evidence  of  this 
old  woman,  and  he  did  worse  than  that.  Standing  here  in  the  bar  before 
this  jury  and  before  this  court  he  uttered  a  prayer  to  heaven,  and  in  the 
midst  of  that  prayer  he  gave  a  stab  to  her  character.  He  stood  here,  and, 
with  his  e3"es  raised  towards  heaven,  in  speaking  of  this  old  woman,  he  said, 
"  God  bless  her,  but  don't  turn  that  man  loose  upon  her  testimony  !"  Ah, 
I  tell  3'ou  they  have  got  to  straits  in  this  case  when  they  attack  that  old 
woman's  character.  And  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  leave  it  to  you. 
But  a  few  more  days  and  she  will  cross  over  the  river  and  enter  that  eter- 
nity to  which  all  of  us  are  tending.  From  her  life,  from  what  has  been  said 
here,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  her  home  will  be  among  the  blessed;  that 
there  she  will  spend  eternity,  and  if  you  do  not  find  out  the  truth  here,  if 
you  can  not  unveil  this  thing  here,  if  it  should  be  your  good  fortune,  and  I 
jjray  God  it  may  be,  to  reach  that  land  and  meet  that  good  old  woman,  you 
will  find  that  what  she  said  here  was  the  truth.  And  I  ask  you,  in  leav- 
ing this  case  with  you,  leaving  the  prisoner's  cause  in  your  hands,  to  be 
guided  by  this  certain  evidence,  take  care  of  that  which  you  can  grasp,  take 
care  of  that  which  is  in  sight,  hold  on  to  the  evidence  of  this  good  old  lady, 
and  5'ou  will  be  led  to  a  conclusion  that  you  will  not  regret  hereafter. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence,  no  eye- 
witness saw  the  murder ;  no  eye  save  the  All-seeing  Eye  witnessed  this  bloody 
scene.  Be  careful;  weigh  this  evidence  well;  be  careful  with  the  verdict.  If 
his  Honor  on  the  bench  should  rule  wrong,  why  we  can  take  it  to  the 
Supreme  Court  and  have  it*  corrected,  if  any  officer  in  this  court  does  wrong, 
there  is  a  place  to  have  it  corrected.  If  you  do  wrong,  there  is  no  help. 
And  I  have  thought  sometimes  that  if  I  were  sitting  on  a  jury  trying  a  man 
for  his  life,  and  especially  upon  circumstantial  evidence,  and  I  was  to  find 
out  afterwards  that  I  had  done  wrong,  that  I  had  given  weight  to  insinua- 
tions and  suggestions  that  were  not  proved.  I  have  thought,  in  a  case  of  that 
sort,  that  a  home  in  perdition  with  all  its  horrors  would  not  be  worse  than 
the  gnawings  of  conscience  upon  the  vitals  of  any  juror  who  would  give  a 
verdict  upon  insufficient  evidence.  Gentlemen,  I  leave  D.  A.  McDougald  in 
your  hands. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Cunoley. 


105 


COI,.  W.  F.  FRENCH, 
of  Luuiberton,  N.  C. 


Col.  W.  F.  French— for  the  defence. 

May  it  please  your  Honor  a)id  Gentlemen 
of  the  Jtiry  : 

I  have  been  ordered  by  my  commander 
in  this  cause  to  go  out  and  find  the  ene- 
my, and  to  open  nu-  batteries  upouAim, 
whether  he  be  in  the  front  or  iw  the 
rear.  As  a  good  soldier  it  becomes  my 
dut3%  so  far  as  in  my  power  lies,  to  car- 
rj'  out  those  orders,  and  in  making  this 
advance  I  intend  to  inscribe  upon  my 
banners  the  last  words  which  the  good 
old  lady  uttered — \-ou  perhaps  did  not 
catch  them  all — as  she  was  lying  upon 
„.-„  her  bed  of  sickness.  It  was,  "ah!  ah! 
X,that  won't  do;  stand  to  the  truth." 
And  I  will  let  you  draw  your  own  con- 
clusion; the  State  was  examining,  and 
when  those  words  came,  "  stand  to  the 
truth,"  the\'  ceased  the  examination;  it 
did  not  seem  to  suit  them.  Those  very 
words  I  wish  to  inscribe  upon  my 
shield  in  this  cause. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  a  pleasure 
to  me  to  have  the  honor  to  appear  be- 
fore a  jury  of  the  grand  old  county  of 
Cumberland,  a  county  rich  in  the  past  in  noble  men  and  lovely  women,  and 
still  possessing  abundant  harvests  of  the  same;  a  county  especially  rich  in 
legal  lore,  the  county  of  a  Dobbin,  a  Strange,  an  Eccles  and  other  illustrious 
men.  The  polished,  persuasive,  eloquent  I)obbin,  at  whose  touch,  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Xavy,  Japan,  whose  ports  had  been  closed  for  centuries,  opened 
them  to  the  navies  of  the  world;  a  new  star  in  the  constellation  of  nations 
appeared  in  the  skies,  a  new  empire  began  to  be  civilized  and  christianized, 
a  new  nation  was  born.  Strange,  the  fervid,. passionate,  eloquent,  high-spir- 
ited cavalier;  Strange,  who  struck  blows  with  the  rapidity  of  lightning; 
M'hose  eloquence  was  like  the  mountain  current,  rippling,  dancing,  dashing 
from  rock  to  rock,  receiving  the  sunbeams  as  they  pass.  In  war,  never  was 
lion  more  fierce,  in  peace  never  was  lamb  more  mild.  He  had  the  honor  to 
represent  you  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  a  day  when,  in  my  opin- 
ion, it  was  the  highest  honor  that  could  be  bestowed  upon  man.  The  couut)' 
of  a  Wright,  a  iMacRae  and  other  illustrious  men  that  were  living  in 
that  time  in  your  county.  The  venerable  looking  Wright,  who,  when  you 
looked  upon  him,  carried  \'ou  back  to  days  of  old,  to  the  days  of  the  Patriarch. 
MacRae,  who  leaped  in  the  armor  of  Achilles'  strength,  and  most  nobly  did 
he  wear  it  and  closels*  in  his  fo.jtsteps  walk.  Shepherd,  the  pure  vShepherd, 
gentle  and  mild,  a  shepherd  by  name  as  well  as  by  nature,  for  no  bruised, 
wounded  lamb  ever  sought  his  fold  in  vain.  Strange,  whose  soul  for  purity 
and  heart  for  goodness  was  never  excelled,  and  whose  mind  was  seldom 
equalled,  who  spoke  in  "thoughts  that  breathe  and  words  that  burn,"  a 
Chesterfield  of  fire.     A  Dobbin,  with  all  the  persuasiveness  of  eloquence. 

My  friends,  on  that  time  there  appeared  a  3'oung  man  who  saw  fit  not 
to  enter  the  legal  profession,  one  whose  power  to  sway  men's  hearts  and 
their  feelings  is  well  known  in  this  section,  one  who  could  sway  men's  feel- 
ings like  the  summer  breeze,  who  still  lives  to  teach  men  true  oratory,  the 
Bayard  of  the  rostrum,  Harry  i\I\rover  of  the  town  of  Fayetteville.  Where, 
with  the  exception  of  the  last,  where  are  all  these  men  .-*  They  are  gone, 
gone;  they  are  pas.sed  over  the  river  and  are  now  quietlj'  and  gently  sleeping 
beneath  the  soft,  downv  covering  of  autumn  leaves.  Dead,  did  you  sa}' ? 
Oh,  no;  they  are  not  dead,  their  example  still  lives;  they  live  in  \-our  mem- 
ory, they  are  cherished  in  the  innermost  chambers  of  j'our  heart.     As  the 


106  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

old  men  return  from  their  labors  to  their  hearth-stone  at  night  they  tell  to 
the  younger  men  the  past  history  of  these  men  and  bid  them  in  their  foot- 
steps walk. 

Then,  gentlemen,  you  had  following  in  other  professions  men  equally 
as  noted;  there  were  5'our  Lillys  and  your  Steels,  and  your  other  illus- 
trious in  in,  your  Smiths  and  your  William -es,  names  so  numerous  that,  if 
I  should  attempt  merely  to  call  them,  the  sun  that  crimsoned  the  Eist  this 
morning  would  set  in  the  West  and  rise  again  refreshed  from  its  slumbers 
and^k«d  me  still  calling  this  immortal  roll.  Your  breed  of  noble  men  is  not 
yet  extinct;  3'ou  have  \'et  men  occup^'ing  all  these  vocations  of  life  who,  for 
eloquence  and  business  capacit}-,  have  no  superiors  and  few  equals;  but  their 
worth  is  only  excelled  bj-  their  modesty  and  I  will  forbear  to  name  them. 
To  this  county,  gentlemen,  to  this  illustrious  county,  the  prisoner,  Daniel 
McDougald  has  come.  Yes,  he  has  come  to  the  county  of  his  kinswoman, 
Flora  McDonald,  he  has  come  here  to  ask  you  whether  he  shall  live  or  die; 
no  one  else  but  3'ou.  Shall  he  live  or  die  ?  In  the  hollow  of  your  hand  you 
hold  his  life;  close  it  and  he  is  crushed;  speak  the  words  and  he  springs 
forth  free.  This  duty  in  the  providence  of  God  has  been  put  upon  J'OU, 
why,  I  know  not,  nor  do  you  know,  but  it  is  there,  and  it  cannot  be  wiped  out. 
This  prisoner  has  come  before  you  to  say  whether  or  not  he  shall  live  sur- 
rounded with  his  good  character,  that  he  has  borne  from  his  youth,  or  whether 
he  shall  meet  a  felon's  doom,  and  I  shall  try  as  best  I  can  to  assist  you  in 
bringing  in  a  correct  verdict  in  this  case. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  never  before,  I  believe  candidly,  did  I  feel  more 
completely  my  own  weakness;  never  before  did  I  have  such  an  urgent  de- 
sire to  possess  great  powers  of  eloquence  and  reasoning,  and  this  is  not  a  .sel- 
fish desire  that  I  crave,  but  it  is  that  I  mav  have  the  power  to  clearly  state  to 
you  the  great  wrongs  that  the  prisoner  has  suffered  on  account  of  this  cruel 
and  unjust  confinement,  and  the  anguish  that  is  now  upon  his  heart  on  ac- 
count of  this  unjust  charge.  Ah,  gentlemen,  if  some  of  the  men  that  I  have 
naiuil  here  to  day  could  stand  where  I  do  stand,  they  would  cause  the  very 
heart-strings  of  your  hearts  to  be  broken  up  in  sympathy  for  that  mother 
and  that  father  and  that  poor  prisoner,  whose  life-blood  the  prosecution  are 
seeking;  would  to  God  that  the  mantle  had  fallen  on  such  shoulders  as  these  ! 
Do  not  be  frightened  by  this  array  of  books;  do  not  think  that  the  law  is 
cruel  to  you.  It  would  be  cruel  indeed  were  it  to  put  you  there  and  not 
give  you  any  lights;  it  is  not  so,  it  has  not  left  you  in  a  dark  and  deserted 
road,  but  it  has  put  lights  on  the  road,  so  that  you  will  not  get  out  of  one 
light  before  you  come  into  the  full  glare  of  another.  In  other  words,  what 
is  the  law  in  this  case?  I  have  a  right  to  argue  to  you  the  law,  and  it  is  a 
right  that  I  almost  invariably  take;  it  is  a  right  that  I  think  some  counsel 
in  the  case  ought  to  take,  and  it  has  fallen  upon  me  in  this  case.  I  say  do 
not  be  frightened,  I  shall  read  to  you  but  a  few  words  out  ot  each  one  of 
these  books. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  know  that  you  are  tired  and  weary;  I  know  that  you 
wish  to  turn  your  footsteps  towards  home;  I  doubt  not  that  a  loving  wife's 
heart  is  beating  there  looking  anxiously  for  j'our  return;  I  doubt  not  that 
the  children  are  saying,  "when  will  papa  be  home?"  and  they  are  strain- 
ing their  e^^es  down  the  road  to  see  if  they  cannot  see  his  loving  form.  But 
papa  is  on  duty,  papa,  ^s  a  son  of  North  Carolina,  sits  there  to-day  to  say 
whether  another  son  of  hers  .shall  live  or  die;  he  is  on  duty,  he  must  be  on  the 
outposts,  the  enemy  are  after  him;  the  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Com- 
pany, backed  by  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  is  crying  for  his  blood;  you  are 
on  your  post  of  duty,  and  God  knows,  I  know,  you  will  doit,  I  am  not  afraid 
of  you,  the  prison  r  is  not  afraid  of  you.  With  all  the  money  and  with  all 
the  power,  thank  God  this  is  yet  a  court  of  justice;  they  have  attempted  to 
pollute  even  the  streams  of  the  noble  court  of  justice,  but  they  have  failed 
in  this  cause.  Now,  I  will  first  talk  as  it  becomes  my  duty,  and  I  am  very 
sorry  that  the  gentleman  is  not  here;  having  absented  himself  of  his  own 
accord,  of  course  he  can  not  complain  of  us  for  replying  to  him  in  that  cause, 
a  cause  where  the  life  and  destin}-  of  the  prisoner  are  at  stake;  he  has  left 
three  able  representatives  to  protect  him   here.     Now,  what  did  Mr.  McLean 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  107 

say?  I\Ir.  INIcLean  :  "no  man  dare  saj'  that  the  State  has  done  more  than  its 
duty  in  this  case."  I  say  so,  and  I  will  give  either  of  ^-on  an  hour  to  deny 
it.  you  can  take  it  out  of  my  time;  it  has  been  said  so,  and  I  say  .so  now,  that 
3-ou  have  done  more  than  your  duty  in  this  case.  They  have  deliberately 
attempted  to  break  the  laws  t  f  North  Carolina,  a  capital  felony,  and  but  for 
his  Honor  on  the  bench  it  wou.d  have  been  done  four  times;  recollect  the  posi- 
tive attempt  made  b\'  Mr.  Neal  in  his  speech,  which  upon  my  request  his 
Honor  checked, — "I  did  hope  that  he  would  lift  the  burden  laid  upon  him  " 
Well,  then  they  tell  j'ou  that  we  have  not  proved  the  prisoner  not  guilty. 
Why,  have  they  become  so  thoroughly  warped  against  the  prisoner,  that, 
good  lawyers  as  they  are,  the}'  have  forgotten  all  the  law  the}'  ever  knew  ?  Is 
it  possible  that  they  have  gotten  that  far.-*  We  have  not  proved  the  prisoner 
not  guilty  !  Why,  gentlemen,  the  prisoner  need  not  open  his  lips  under  the 
law  of  North  Carolina;  they  have  got  to  prove  him  guilty,  that  is  the  burden 
on  them;  why,  it  just  shows  that  the  gentleman  is  so  warped  that  he  has 
not  only  forgotten  the  law  in  this  cause  but  in  ever}'  other  cause. 

Now,  let  us  go  a  little  further.  I  would  letire  in  a  moment  if  there  was 
any  doubt  about  this  question;  I  would  not  ask  you  to  do  what  I  would  not 
do  in  your  place.  Gentlemen,  thank  God  there  are  witnesses  in  this  case. 
I  don't  know  what  these  two  lawyers  will  say,  but  they  have  not  had  a  law- 
3-er  here  that  has  not  tried  to  be  a  witness;  why  he  would  have  been  hung  in 
one  second  if  it  went  upon  thoughts;  they  have  got  no  right  to  tell  j'ou  W'hat 
their  thoughts  are.  They  censured  my  brother  because  he  did  not  tell  you 
his  thoughts  as  to  whether  the  prisoner  was  guilty  or  innocent.  He  did 
right,  he  has  got  no  business  to  express  his  thoughts.  There  is  but  one 
thing  to  give  you  and  that  is  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  this  cause;  it  does 
not  make  any  difference  what  the  attorneys  for  the  defendant  think,  it  does 
not  make  ai\y  difference  what  the  attorneys  for  the  prosecution  think.  The 
law:  Is  he  guilty  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  as  it  appears  before 
you  ?  Was  not  that  your  oath  .'*  Has  it  not  been  recorded  in  high  Heaven  ? 
They  tell  you  what  they  think,  they  call  the  prisoner  all  kinds  of  names, 
they  search  the  alphabet  to  see  how  thej-  can  abuse  him — poor  man,  stand- 
ing here  not  able  to  open  his  mouth  except  through  his  counsel.  Let  us 
hear  a  little  more;  let  us  lake  them  up  as  we  go  along.  "  No  short-cut; " 
well,  I  would  like  to  know  what  he  calls  short-cuts;  I  wish  he  would  give  me 
an  explanation  of  short-cuts,  I  don't  know  what  dictionary  he  uses.  He 
expresses  great  sorrow  for  the  prisoner,  "only  going  to  do  his  dutv,  felt  for 
him;"  he  takes  fifteen  minutes  to  tell  j'ou  of  his  feelings  for  the  prisoner, 
that  he  did  not  h'ave  any  malice.  Bro.  Neal  talked  about  fifteen  minutes 
also  to  tell  you  that  he  had  no  malice  in  this  case  ;  "  nothing  in  the  world 
against  the  prisoner;  "  yes,  he  was  sorry  for  him,  going  only  to  do  his  duty. 
Yet  he  turns  to  him  with  the  exclamation  that  Conole\-  is  now  where  the 
ball  of  the  assassin  cannot  reach  him.  That  he  felt  for  him,  that  he  was 
sorry  for  him,  that  he  was  not  going  to  use  any  harsh  names;  oh  no,  not  he, 
his  heart  was  going  to  be  as  tender  towards  him  as  a  lamb,  and  he  calls  him 
an  assassin;  I  have  down  his  various  other  expressions,  but  I  have  not  the 
time  to  quote  them.  Cientlemen,  give  me  deeds  not  words;  one  kind  act  is 
worth  a  thousand  words  from  a  heart  that  is  doing  no  kindness  but  is  doing 
the  contrary.  The  prisoner  may  well  exclaim  in  this  cause  like  John  Ran- 
dolph, "  God  preserve  me  from  my  friends  and  I  will  take  care  of  my 
enemies."  But  they  are  his  friends;  wh\'  trouble  you  with  all  these  expres- 
sions? 

They  tell  you  that  the  count}-  of  Robeson  is  hounding  this  man  to  death. 
WHio  has  told  you  that  the  county  of  Robeson  is  hounding  him  to  death  ? 
None  of  our  side;  you  have  that  created  in  the  gentleman's  own  brain.  If 
the  county  of  Robeson  has  any  such  charge  he  is  the  creator  of  the  charge 
and  the  man  that  makes  it.  The  county  of  Robeson  hounding  him  unto 
death!  I  profess  to  have  as  much  love  for  the  grand  old  county  of  Roljeson 
as  my  associate  has;  he  was  a  sen  of  that  county  by  accident  and  I  by  choice. 
Again,  we  are  told  that  good  men  have  employed  these  gentlemen  to  prose- 
cute. I  snppo.se  we  do  not  represent  any  good  men  of  the  county  of  Robe- 
son; well,  gentlemen,  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  good  men.     We 


108  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

asked  them  at  Lumberton  who  emplo3'ed  them,  and  they  called  the  names  of 
but  two  men  in  the  county,  and  said  the}'  were  some  of  those  that  were  aid- 
ini;  them  in  getting  up  the  fees.  We  have  a  right  to  know  who  the  men  are, 
because  the  constitution  of  North  Carolina  provides  that  a  prisoner  shall 
know  who  his  accusers  are,  and  under  that  constitution  we  have  a  right  to 
know  who  employed  them;  if  two  men  constitute  all  the  good  men  in  Robe- 
son county  they  are  casting  a  greater  slur  on  it  than  ever  I  heard  cast  by  any- 
body'. Gentlemen,  it  is  not  possible,  it  would  take  me  too  long  to  go  through 
this  whole  list  of  the  charges  that  the  gentlemen  made.  I  will  tell  you  one 
thing,  for  there  is  one  thing  here  I  must  not  omit:  "The  sole  object  of  the 
defence  is  to  confuse  your  minds,  not  to  prove  him  clear."  Every  cloud 
that  hangs  over  this  case  and  prevents  you  from  seeing  as  clear  as  the  noon- 
day, it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  to  lift,  and  let  the  sunbeams 
come  beneath  it,  But  they  don't  doit,  and  they  talk  about  vis;  "3'ou  are 
trying  mereh-  to  confuse  them,  you,  don't  prove  him  clear."  Well  now, 
gentlemen,  if  I  was  about  to  pass  over  the  Alps  after  the  Spring  sun  had 
shown  upon  its  mountain  tops,  and  I  could  get  a  guide  that  would  be  as 
careful  of  my  safety'  as  the  first  gentleman  that  addressed  you  on  the  part  of 
the  State  was  careful  not  to  let  escape  from  his  lips  one  word  in  favor  of  the 
poor  prisoner  (and  I  shall  show  it  to  you),  I  would  feel  as  safe  as  a  new-born 
infant  reclining  upon  its  mother's  breast;  not  a  word  for  the  poor  pris- 
oner did  he  let  you  hear — not  one  as  I  shall  show  you.  Well,  now,  gen- 
tlemen, I  told  3'ou  in  the  beginning — and  I  know  it  is  going  to  be  some- 
what wearisome,  but  I  ask  your  close  attention  to  it — I  told  3'ou  in  the  be- 
ginning, that  I  would  give  you  some  law  on  this  case;  it  is  absolutely  nec- 
essary that  you  should  have  some  law;  it  is  true  that  his  Honoi  on  the  bench 
will  give  5'ou  the  law,  but  he  will  just  read  from  a  paper,  he  has  not  got 
time,  and  it  is  not  his  dut^^  to  explain  to  3'ou  the  law  as  I  may  do;  if  I  am 
wrong,  his  Honor  sits  there  to  correct  me;  if  I  think  he  has  corrected  me  im- 
properh',  I  humbly  bow  to  his  decision  in  this  case,  and  I  go  up  higher  where 
his  master  and  mj'  master  sits  to  explain  the  law,  and  so  not  much  harm  is 
done.  If  I  misquote  the  facts  to  3'ou,  I  want  3'ou  to  remember,  if  I  misquote 
the  facts  to  3'ou,  3-ou  will  judge,  3'ou  can  sa}-,  ''French  misquotes  the  iacts, 
he  misled  me,"  and  upon  that  point  I  want  you  to  remember  that  every 
fact  which  his  Honor  will  tell  3'ou  are  facts  you  have  got  given  3'ou  here;  he 
just  reads  them  over  to  refresh  v'our  memory;  3'ou  are  placed  above  his  Hon- 
or; 3-ou  hold  a  higher  position  than  he  does,  as  I  say,  except  upon  some  im- 
material questions.  When  he  decides  against  us  we  can  bow  to  him  and  go 
to  the  higher  courts;  if  he  is  wrong  they  will  quickly  overrule  him;  if  he  is 
right  they  will  sustain  him,  and  so  there  is  but  little  harm  done.  But,  gen- 
tlemen, if  3'OU  make  a  mistake  on  facts,  it  is  terrible;  there  is  no  appeal,  it 
never  will  be  known  till  we  appear  before  that  highest  of  all  courts.  I  say 
that  3'our  mistake  is  fatal.  His  Honor's  mistake  is  something  like  an  infant 
in  a  spasm;  it  looks  like  death;  the  father  and  mother  stand  around  and 
say,  "oh.  Doctor,  will  he  die?  Oh,  Doctor,  he  looks  like  death."  He  says, 
"  no,  he  will  not  die;  a  little  slumber,  3  little  quiet  rest,  and  it  will  be  like 
the  sunbeam  enlightening  the  house."  But  if  3'ou  make  a  mistake,  it  is 
death,  it  is  death.  Life  cannot  be  brought  back  except  by  the  power  that 
brought  it  back  to  Lazarus;  there  is  no  power  here  to  bring  it  back;  if  3'ou 
make  a  mistake  it  is  fatal  and  there  is  no  wa3'  to  help  it. 

What  now,  gentlemen  ?  I  ask  3'our  particular  attention  to  this  :  What 
is  character?  How  should  we  consider  character  ?  Vol.  L  page  643.  There 
is  the  law  that  3-ou  shall  consider  character,  and  3'ou  come  then  as  to 
what  that  character  is,  and  there  we  have  a  decision  in  our  own  State 
of  North  Carolina.  (Reads  from  5  Jones'  law,  page  65;  vState  vs.  Henry,  on 
page  6g  )  Therefore,  gentlemen,  you  have  it  not  onl3'  from  me,  but  from 
this  high  law,  known  in  North  Carolina  as  the  Supreme  Court,  about  this 
glorious,  this  pure,  this  exalted,  this  excellent  character,  which  the  prisoner 
has  proved  here;  although  his  mother's  heart  is  bleeding  at  ever3'  pore,  she 
must  have  felt  some  pride  when  witness  after  witness,  even  the  witnesses 
for  the  prosecution,  came  forward  and  gave  her  darling  bo3'  such  a  glorious 
character.  She  must  have  remembered  the  da3-s  of  old,  far  back,  when  she 
had,  as  a  mother,  done  her  dut3'  by  him. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  109 

Now,  gentlemen,  here  is  this  case:  j'ou  are  told  that  there  is  no  law  in 
it;  the}'  say  it  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence.  Give  me  your  ears  in 
order  that  yon  may  hear,  give  me  vour  minds,  in  order  that  3'ou  may  fully 
understand  that  which  ^-ou  may  hear;  you  are  trying  a  human  being  for  his 
life;  in  your  hands  hangs  that  which,  if  you  take,  j'oucan  rot  restore.  How 
about  circumstantial  evidence?  You  have  not  been  told  how  the  law  is, 
how  30U  are  to  hear  those  facts,  how  j-ou  are  to  consider  them;  let  us  hear 
what  the  State  of  North  Carolina  tells  3"ou  about  circumstantial  evi- 
dence, how  you  are  to  hear;  j'ou  do  not  know,  you  want  to  know.  I  v\as 
surprised  at  one  of  the  attorneys  who  said  that  if  his  Honor  thought  that  the 
cause  was  not  sufficient,  he  would  take  it  Irom  you;  his  Honor  has  no  more 
power,  if  there 'is  any  evidence  in  this  ca.se,  to  take  it  from  you,  than  he  has 
to  take  my  life,  yet  the  attorneys  tell  you  that  to  influence  you.  Now,  let 
us  see  what  the  law  is  about  circumstantial  evidence:  (Reads  from  North 
Carolina  Report,  Vol.  75;  385  on  page  386.)  Each  one  of  these  facts  that 
they  have  attempted  to  prove:  that  he  was  at  Maxton,  that  he  got  on  the 
train,  that  he  got  off  at  Shandon,  must  be  as  sufficiently  proved  as  if  he 
whole  case  turned  upon  that  particular  fact,  proved  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt;  and  each  circumstance  so  proved  must,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
other  circumstances,  tend  to  prov-e  the  prisoner's  guilt  Now,  let  us  go  a 
little  further,  and  take  another  case  that  puts  it  in  another  view.  This 
whole  chain  of  circumstantial  evidence  is  one  chain,  composed  of  numerous 
links,  and  they  say  that  they  have  proved  each  one  oftho.se  links,  that  they 
are  firmlv  riveted,  and  having  done  so,  riveted  together,  that  that  chain  car- 
ries you  wilh  the  evidence  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  prisoner 
stands  guilty.  Now,  let  us  see  what  the  law  sajs  :  (Reads  from  80  North 
Carolina,  vState  vs.  Bowan,  page  432,  taken  from  page  435.)  You  must  be  as 
fully  convinced  of  every  link  in  this  chain  as  j-ou  are  that  Sim.  Conoley  was 
killed.  I  am  not  talking  to  3'ou,  gentlemen.  I  am  not  going  to  do  like  those 
gentlemen  did;  it  does  not  make  an}'  difference  what  I  think  about  this  thing, 
here  is  where  j-ou  get  the  law  from;  if  I  am  wrong  his  Honor  will  stop  me; 
if  I  am  right  3'ou  ought  to  hear  it.  Hew  would  \-ou  get  the  law?  From 
witnes^es  you  get?  No,  sir,  it  does  not  make  one  bit  of  difierence  to  me 
what  the  other  side  thinks,  nor  do  we  care.  Now,  let  us  see  a  little  further 
in  this  thing:  (Reads  from  State  Z'S.  Matthews,  66th  North  Carolina,  p  ige 
106,  particularh'  page  115  )  It  sa3'S,  an  unreasonable  theory  3-ou  can  ex- 
clude, but  the  rule  is  that  it  must  produce  a  moral  certainty.  What  is  a 
moral  certaint3-?  Such  a  certainty  as  that  3-ou  can  go  before  your  God  at 
the  final  da3'  and  sa\',  "I  rendered  a  verdict,  and  I  was  morall3'  certain  of 
the  guilt  of  the  pri.soner."  On  that  day,  if  not  before,  we  must  answer  for 
it;  it  has  been  decreed  by  God  and  a  man  can  not  alter  it.  Let  us  see  if 
there  is  any  more. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  admit  to  3'OU  that  some  of  the  cases  do  lay  down  that 
circumstantial  evidence  is  as  strong  as  direct  evidence;  I  do  not  know  but 
that  some  of  the  law  writers  rather  lean  towards  circumstantial  evidence; 
I  never  could  believe  it,  never  could  see  wlu',  and  this  bcok  lavs  down  a 
rule  here  that  I  think  is  rather  stretching  the  rule  in  our  favor.  (Reads  from 
Ram  on  Facts,  page  285.)  I  did  not  know  he  laid  it  down  that  wa3',  that  is, 
that  if  you  make  a  mistake,  it  could  not  be  corrected  this  side  of  heaven. 
Now,  let  us  see  if  there  is  any  more  on  it.  (State  z'S.  Swink,  Devereux  and 
Battle,  page  116,  3-our  Honor.)  Ah,  gentlemen,  here  is  a  voice  that  the  dust 
has  long  covered;  he  has  been  taken  to  his  home,  but  he  will  neverbe  for- 
gotten, never;  a  bright  legal  intellect  that  as  Carolinians  we  are  proud 
of,  an  intellect  whose  equal  has  been  sought  in  Westminster  Hall;  he  sleeps, 
but  thank  (^lod  his  voice  still  speaks  for  the  prisoner.  Ah,  3es,  and  I  will 
say  one  thing  to  you,  it  is  the  voice  of  a  man  who,  although  great  as  he  was, 
had  been  solicitor,  and  as  I  shall  show  3-ou  before  I  end  that  holding 
that  office  long  dries  up  every tlrng  almost  like  sympath}-  and  puts  into 
your  heart  a  desire  for  blood;  and  you  cannot  help  it,  it  is  human  nature,  I 
will  show  it  to  you;  this  was  the  lamented  Ruffin.  All  law3-ers  will 
agree  w-ith  me  that  he  never  was  known  to  lean  towards  the  prisoner,  3-ou 
cannot  sa}-  that  he  was  biased  towards  the  pris6ner;  now,  if  he  was  that 


no  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

wann-hearted,  glorious  old  man  that  I  read  law  under,  Judge  Paul,  you 
might  sa\'  that  the  heart  had  gotten  the  better  of  the  feeling  and  he  leaned 
towards  the  prisoner,  but  it  can  not  be  said  of  Ruffin,  glorious  and  honest  as 
he  was.  Though  it  is  conceded  that  he  did  not  often  lean  towards  the  pris- 
oner, (gentlemen,  this  is  not  addressed  to  the  court,  to  outsiders,  it  is  ad- 
dressed to  N'ou,  gentlemen  ofthejurj',  as  the  opinion  of  Ruffin),  here  there 
was  a  jury  hung,  and  his  Honor  took  the  liberty  to  discharge  theni,  and 
Ruffin  says  that  was  wrong;  the  prisoi;er  has  been  put  upon  his  life  and 
there  was  no  excuse  for  discharging  that  jury,  the  jury  ought  not  to  be  dis- 
charged. It  is  possible  that  when  j'ou  come  to  consult  over  this  thing  you 
will  ultimately  come  to  the  same  conclusion,  but  suppose  you  do  not, 
suppose  3'ou  are  \\hat  ^-ou  call  "hung,"^and  I  had  a  heap  rather 
hang  twenty  jurors  than  niN-  client — what  does  Ruffin  tell  you?  (Reads 
above  mentioned  extract.)  I  am  not  talking  to  3'ou,  I  am  speaki  ig 
from  one  that  is  dead.  Now,  there  is  that  learned  man  that  tells 
you — remember  it  when  3'ou  go  in  there,  jurors,  if  an 5^  of  you  have 
doubts,  Ruffin  says,  it  is  presumed  the  other  jurors  will  respect  the 
doubts,  because  where  there  are  doubts  there  is  a  presumption  that  the  pris- 
oner is  innocent.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  fear  of  that  in  this  case,  but  I 
tell  3'ou  one  thing,  gentlemen  of  the  jur\',  and  I  mean  ever}'  word  I  say,  if 
an}'  one  of  the  jury  go  into  that  jurors'  room,  and  have  clear,  distinct,  reas- 
onable doubts  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner,  and  he  surrenders  those  doubts 
for  his  convenience,  for  his  ease;  if  he  surrenders  those  doubts  because  he 
may  think  it  said  "I  am  a  stubborn  man,"  he  is  just  as  guilt}'  of  judicial 
murder  as  if  he  shot  the  prisoner.  No  doubt  about  it;  no  dodging  it. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  say  I  would  deceive  you;  I  don't  pretend  to  say  if  you 
have  those  doubts,  and  the  other  jurors  by  argument  can  show  j'ou  that 
those  doubts  are  without  foundation  and  that  you  are  deciding  without 
reason,  then  you  have  a  ris/ht  and  it  is  your  dut}'  to  go  to  the  other  side; 
but  unless  the}'  do  that  it  is  your  duty,  according  to  the  oath  recorded  on 
high,  to  stand  to  those  doubts  forever. 

Gentlemen,  let  us  hear  a  little  more.  Well,  there  is  a  little  more  in  this 
book  of  Devereux  and  Battle.  Now.  gentlemen,  we  come  to  those  doubts;  I 
am  not  going  to  tell  you  whit  those  d  vubts  are;  I  am  going  to  read  you  what 
the  law  says  those  doubts  are — the  State  vs.  INIerril,  Second  Devereux  and 
Battle,  page  268  on  page  278.  This,  your  Honor,  was  a  case  of  as  clear  murder 
as  could  possibly  be  conceived  of.  The  prisoner  had  been  hired  by  a  man  that 
was  distilling,  and  the  man  that  was  distilling  charged  him  simply  with 
stealing  cider,  and  he  immediately  killed  the  man  that  charged  it.  It 
touches  this  case,  gentlemen;  the  prisoner's  counsel  merely  asked  a  witness 
whether  the  man  was  an  insane  man  or  not;  the  prosecution,  as  in  this  case, 
jumped  at  it  and  says,  "  you  put  the  poor  prisoner's  character  at  issue,  and 
I  have  a  right  to  attack  it,"  and  he  asked  a  witness  if  he  had  not  a  violent 
temper.  It  went  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Was  that  language  improper? 
Ah,  gentlemen,  if  that  language  was  improper,  how  improper  they  have 
acted  four  times  in  this  case,  and  I  will  give  them  fifteen  minutes  to  say  it  is 
not  so,  before  I  get  through.  The  onlv  thing  in  this  case  was  that  simple 
question,  but  what  does  the  Supreme  Court  say?  [Reads  the  extract.]  Gen- 
tlemen, remember  here  upon  what  the  Supreme  Court  granted  a  new  trial  to 
a  man  who  was  clearly  guilty.  The  rules  of  evidence  in  favor  of  life,  re- 
member, cannot  be  too  closelv  adhered  to;  if  the  rules  of  evidence  in  favor 
of  life  cannot  be  too  closely  adhered  to;  if  his  Honor  does  wrong,  as  this  Judge 
does,  we  can  go  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  overrule  him,  and  it  is  very  like 
an  infant  temporarily  dead.  Oh,  how  much  more  important  is  it  for  you 
that  the  rules  of  evidence  or  the  evidence  against  the  prisoner  should  most 
strictlv  be  considered  in  his  favor,  because,  as  I  said  before,  if  you  make  a 
mistake  there  is  no  .Supreme  Court  to  go  to — the  mistake  is  final,  and  means 
the  death  of  the  prisoner.  Gentlemen,  what  do  I  tell  you  ?  I  am  not  going 
to  tell  you  anything  that  is  not  in  the  books.  I  told  you  that  Judge  Ruffin 
was  against  the  prisoner;  he  delivers  another  opinion  here  of  two  or  three 
pages,  expressly  showing'that  the  Supreme  Court  was  wrong;  he  had  been 
Solicitor  a  long  time,  and  he  had,  fully  impregnated  in  his  mind,  a  desire  for 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoloy.  Ill 

blood.  Well,  now,  let  us  see,  gentlemen,  how  this  case  stands.  We  put  in 
evidence  the  character  of  ihe  prisoner  up  to  the  time  of  this  charge;  well, 
that  is  right:  the  law  says  you  cannot  go  behind  the  charge;  it  would  be  im- 
proper, gentlemen;  on  that  we  are  safe,  not  as  the}'  try  to  show;  "  well,  if 
you  w.uit  to  keep  it  out  we  don't  object."  Is  that  fair,  when  the  life  of  a 
prisoner  is  at  stake  ?  Whether  he  is  guilty  or  innocent,  that  is  the  very 
thing  you  are  going  to  try.  Bro.  Neal  has  made  him  guilty;  Bro  Archie 
McLean  has  made  him  guilty,  and  the  fact  whether  he  is  guilty  or  not  is  the 
very  thing  you  have  got  to  try.  But  to  mj-  great  surprise,  my  friend — for  he 
is  my  friend — in  this  case  has  forgot,  it  seems  to  me,  that  anything  is  fair 
for  the  prisoner.  To  my  great  surprise  he  asks  a  witness  what  has  been  his 
character  since  the  charge.  His  Honor  looked  surprised  from  the  Bench, 
leaned  over,  looked  at  him  and  said  :  "Do  you  mean  that?  Is  it  possible, 
Mr  Solicitor?"  He  looked  a  little  guilty,  and  he  sat  down,  and  his  first 
lieutenant  said,  "  well,  gentlemen,  if  you  don't  want  it  to  come  out  we  will 
withhold  it."  Was  that  fair  in  a  case  of  life  and  death  ?  Was  it  fair  against 
the  prisoner?     You  can  have  half  an  hour  to  answer  it. 

Was  that  all  ?  Afterwards  Mr.  Shaw,  in  examining  a  witness,  asked  the 
question,  what  is  his  character  up  to  this  charge?  They  immediately 
jumped  up  again  :  "  What  is  his  character  since  ?"  Was  that  all  ?  No,  once 
afterwards.  Was  that  all?  No,  the  fourth  time  they  did  it;  they  asked, 
"  has  not  the  prisoner  been  charged  with  other  crimes  since  this  crime  has 
been  committed  ?"  Don't  they  know  it  is  not  the  law  ?  His  Honor  checked 
them  and  said  it  was  not  the  law.  Ah,  gentlemen,  is  it  right  to  do  it  ?  The 
Solicitor  stands  there;  he  is  the  commander  of  this  fleet;  these  gentlemen 
are  the  privateers,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  hold  them  within  the  law;  privateer- 
ing in  all  nations  lead.s  to  piracy  if  allowed  to  go  too  far;  and,  gentlemen, 
the  verv  moment  they  attemped  to  break  the  law  he  should  have  turned 
upon  them  the  guns  and  said,  "I  will  sink  you  just  as  quick  as  I  will  the 
enemy  if  you  don't  keep  within  the  bounds  of  the  law."  Gentlemen,  we 
have  got  to  check  the  Solicitor  up;  you  and  I  have  got  to  check  him  up,  and 
we  have  got  a  right  to  check  him  up.  I  am  but  a  private  citizen,  but  I  am 
one  of  the  voters  in  this  district;  you  are  voters  in  this  di.strict,  and  if  you  and 
I  can  not  check  him  up  there  is  is  no  power  under  God  to  do  it;  he  is  covered 
with  all  this  power  and  paraphernalia  coming  from  you  and  I,  and  we  must 
check  him  up  on  this  very  thing — going  to  check  him  up,  too.  Gentlemen, 
this  is  a  serious  piece  of  business;  he  ought  to  be  checked  up  not  only 
for  us  but  for  himself  in  this  case.  Why,  let  me  tell  j-ou,  gentlemen,  if  he 
allows  his  feelings  to  get  the  upper  hand  merely  when  examining  a  witness, 
in  the  name  of  heaven,  what  will  he  do  when  he  comes  to  argue  this  case? 
Can  you  put  an}'  confidence  in  what  he  is  going  to  tell  you  ?  If  he  deliber- 
ately breaks  the  law  in  the  first  question,  how  can  you  tell  what  he  is  going 
to  do?  And,  gentlemen,  if  he  break  the  law  in  that  respect  against  Daniel 
McDougald,  suppose  you  and  I  were  on  trial  ?  We  must  check  him  up;  he 
can  not  help  it.  Wh\',  he  is  my  friend,  and  I  sa}-  he  can  not  help  it,  but  I 
say  it  is  nur  absolute  duty  to  check  him  up  in  this  cause;  he  is  not  to  blame 
in  that  respect,  but  for  that  very  reason  it  becomes  the  duty  of  you  and  me 
and  every  man  to  put  the  check-rein  on  him,  hold  him,  tell  him  he  must 
stop.  Now,  these  are  the  facts,  thev  can  not  denj^  it;  I  dare  them  to  tell  3'ou 
that  it  was  right  to  ask  that  question.  Why,  they  won't  do  it,  and  yet  my 
brother  says  no  one  would  dare  to  say  that  they  had  treated  this  defense  in 
any  way  except  what  was  right;  and  after  that,  if  you  remember — I  sprang  to 
my  feet  almost  without  thinking — Bro.  Neal  stood  right  here  and  virtually 
attacked  the  prisoner  because  he  was  not  put  upon  the  stand.  That  man 
Gillespie  swore  that  there  was  nobody  there  by  him  and  the  prisoner,  and 
Bro.  Neil  said,  "why  did  he  not  prove  where  he  was?"  and  Bro.  Neal 
knows  that  the  laws  of  North  Carolina  have  only  recently  allowed  a  prisoner 
to  co.ne  upon  the  stand  in  his  own  l:)ehalf  Many  men  think  it  is  a  bad  law. 
All  the  illustrious  leid.  if  they  conUl  walk  into  this  court  room  and  see  a 
prisoner  in  a  capital  felonv  standing  out  here,  wonld  say,  "surely  this  is 
not  Xorth  Carolina;  I  have  come  to  a  new  land;  it  can  not  be  that  in  a  capji- 
tal  felony  the  great   temptation  is  held  out  to  a  prisoner  to  do  perjur}-;  I 


112  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

mast  be  in  a  new  land — this  can  not  be  North  Carolina."  No,  gentlemen,  I 
say  this  is  a  new  law;  I  say  it  is  a  law  that  the  prisoner  did  not  see  fit  to  be 
tried  b}- — he  comes  here  to  be  tried  by  that  ancient  law. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  this  question  of  doubt.  That  is  one  authority: 
Wharton,  Vol.  ist,  page  744  and  770.  In  the  providence  of  God  I  have  been 
placed  here,  and,  so  help  me  Heaven,  his  heart's  blood  shall  not  be  upon 
my  shoulders;  I  expect  and  intend  to  do  ray  duty  in  this  case.  After  I  have 
done  that,  then  his  Honor,  but,  a  great  deal  more,  you  have  the  enormous 
responsibility.  Now,  listen  here.  (Reads  above  extract,  and  quotes  State 
vs.  Matthews,  65  North  Carolina,  page  106.  Second  Devereux  and  Battle, 
page  63,  particularly  65.)  Now,  gentlemen,  I  shall  lay  down  something  to 
you  that  you  will  very  often  hear  the  Solicitor  tell  you  is  not  so;  well,  this 
case  says  it  is  so.  The}^  very  often  tell  you  that  you  have  got  nothing  to 
do  in  the  world  with  your  verdict,  that  it  does  not  make  any  difference  to 
you  how  soon  the  prisoner  is  hung,  that  you  have  got  nothing  to  do  with 
that,  that  you  try  an  assault  and  bittery  like  you  try  a  capital  felony.  Why, 
it  is  not  so;  the  Supreme  Court  of  North  Carolina  says  it  is  not  so;  I  say  3'ou 
want  to  consider  whether  the  case  yon  are  trying  be  an  assault  and  battery 
or  a  capital  felon\'  in  order  to  adjpt  this  rule.  He  says  it  requires  less 
strong  and  clear  proof  for  you  to  convict  in  a  misdemeanor  than  a  capital 
felony,  because  it  is  less  probable  that  a  man  would  commit  such  a  deed  as 
this;  that  is,  it  is  less  probable  that  he  would  commit  a  capital  felony,  and 
the  evidence  upon  which  you  would  convict  a  man  of  a  misdemeanor  might 
be  strong  enough  for  that,  but  not  strong  enough  to  convict  him  of  a  capital 
felony.  (Reads  extracts  relating  to  circumstantial  evidence  from  State  vs. 
Ephraim,  second  Devereux  and  Battle,  page  162,  principally  171;  State  z'^. 
Bowman,  8oth  North  Carolina,  page  432,  435.) 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  have  heard  a  great  deal  upon  this  question  of 
flight;  I  want  to  tell  you  what  the  law  says  about  that.  (Reads  from  Whar- 
ton, page  732.) 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  have  got  to  stick  by  the  evidence  in  this  case, 
and  we  will  try  to  apply  it  to  this  law  we  have  laid  down.  In  the  first  place, 
I  refer  you  to  the  character  of  the  prisoner.  The  following  witnesses  have 
sworn  in  the  following  words  as  to  his  character.  Robbins:  "  Good,  don't 
know  a  better  man."  McMillan  :  "  Exceptionally  good."  Nehemiah  : 
"Good."  Everington,  "  good."  Livingston,  "good."  McNair,  "good." 
Dr.  Prince,  "excellent."  Rich,  "without  blemish."  McKinnon,  "good 
as  any  man  in  the  county."  Roper,  "without  blemish."  McRae, 
"good."  Powers,  "  character  all  right."  McLaurin,  "good."  Hargrove, 
"none  better."  That  is  the  character  that  you  have  to  tr^^;  that 
is  the  character  that  the  State  of  North  Carolina  says,  in  one  jump, 
jumped  from  a  character  that  would  car  y  him  to  heaven  to  a  character 
that  must  carrv  him  to  hell;  in  one  leap  he  came  from  heaven  to  the 
infernal  regions;  there  is  no  intermediate  place  according  to  them,  and 
that  is  the  character  that  3^011  have  got  to  tr^';  that  is  the  character 
that  I  say  should  weigh  in  this  case.  And  in  the  name  of  Heaven, 
in  our  trial  and  tribulation,  if  a  good  character  that  has  been  instilled 
into  us  b3'  a  christian  mother  is  not  to  avail  us,  what  will  avail? 
What  under  the  sun  will  avail  us,  if  a  good  character  is  not  like  a  rampart 
around  us,  warding  off  the  attacks  of  the  State?  Now,  gentlemen,  I  tell  you 
the  prosecution  is  dropping  out  of  this  cause.  My  first  friend  that  addressed 
you  got  so  ashamed  of  this  man  Gillespie — seeing  that  he  was  covered  with 
infam3'  and  disgrace,  and  that  he  was  covered  with  perjury — the  first  coun- 
sel disregarded  him,  and  said  he  would  not  notice  him.  Ah,  gentlemen, 
when  you  find  in  a  cause  one  witness  covered  with  perjury;  when  3'ou  find 
that  absolutely  they  have  come  to  the  courts  of  justice  and  polluted  the 
streams  that  flow  from  it,  and  which  should  be  as  pure  and  untarnished  as  a 
woman's  virtue;  when  3'ou  find  that,  3'ou  mav  well  scan  some  other  wit- 
nesses: vou  mav  well  ask  3'ourself :  It  he  is  perjured,  how  far  have  the  rest 
been  influenced?  The  first  counsel  dropped  him,  but  friend  Neal  took  him 
up,  he  could  not  stand  it.  And,  gentlemen,  they  have  dropped  another 
thing.     Where  is  that  plot  ?     They  have  dropped  that  plot,  for  I  tell  3'ou, 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  113 

when  we  have  anything  like  consciences,  when  we  have  anything  in  our 
hearts  that  we  are  absolutely  ashamed  of,  we  drop  it.  I  do  not  think  that 
the  gentlemen  knew  when  the}-  put  in  this  plot  that  it  was  wrong;  I  cannot 
believe  that  in  a  capital  felonj;  they  would  introduce  a  plot  that  was  not  cor- 
rect, that  was  absolutely  false.  I  do  not  believe  the  gentlemen  knew  it, 
but  they  ought  to  have  been  more  careful  to  introduce  a  plot  here  which 
would  reproduce  the  e.xact  place  of  murder,  and  not  try  to  prove  to  you  that 
the  old  lad\'  had  committed  perjury  by  a  false  and  perjured  plot.  They 
ought  to  have  examined  it  more  clo.selj^;  their  own  witness,  McLauchlin, 
before  he  got  off  of  the  stand  swore  that  it  was  not  right;  and  j'et  the}'  ask 
you  to  take  the  prisoner's  life,  and  it  was  proven  b}'  their  own  witness  that 
the  plot  was  not  true.  The}'  have  withdrawn  it,  and  I  am  glad  of  it.  Well, 
now,  that  is  two  witnes.ses  in  this  case;  ought  not  you  to  scan  the  rest, 
ought  not  you  to  look  well  and  see?  I  know  the  gentlemen  would  not  do 
such  a  thing  as  that  intentionally,  but  I  say  they  ought  promptly  to  get  up 
as  soon  as  they  find  it  wrong  and  say,  "your  Honor,  I  withdraw  that  plot; 
it  is  not  right,  it  is  not  proper;  it  is  evidence  that  ought  not  to  be  used 
against  the  prisoner,  it  is  false  evidence  and  I  withdraw  it,  and  beg  the  jury 
not  to  notice  it." 

Ah,  gentlemen,  friend  Neal  held  on  to  the  darkey.  They  dropped  off 
the  coat;  they  don't  care  whether  the  prisoner  ever  wore  a  duster  or  not. 
Why,  the  whole  theory  when  they  started  out  was  that  the  party  seen  on 
the  road  was  the  very  party  that  wore  the  duster  at  the  concert,  that  he  put 
on  the  same  costume  that  he  had  on  at  the  concert,  and  that  was  the  reason  that 
he  was  guilty.  I  will  tell  you  what  my  friend  l\Ir.  Neal  did  say  now.  to  show 
you  how  far  they  have  got.  Well,  he  said  this:  he  said  that  he  had  a  per- 
fect right  to  argue  to  you  that  the  prisoner  was  guilty  of  murder  because  he 
said  he  lost  a  wig  and  he  represented  an  old  man  at  the  concert;  he  had  a 
right  to  ask  you  to  take  the  prisoner's  blood  because  he  had  lost  a  wig  and 
he  reprcSLuted  an  old  man  at  the  concert.  Yet,  gentlemen,  they  say  now 
they  don't  care  anything  about  the  concert;  the  concert  has  got  nothing  to 
do  with  this  case.  Why,  gentlemen,  they  proved  by  three  or  four  witnes.ses 
— and  they  are  good  men,  and  I  am  glad  they  are  good  men  :  it  just  shows 
you  the  uncertainty  of  human  evidence — they  prove  by  four  or  five  witnesses 
now  that  the  prisoner  wore  that  duster  at  that  concert.  I  believed  it;  they 
fooled  me.  I  said:  "well,  you  can't  get  out  of  that;  Dan.  INIcUougald  had 
on  that  duster  at  the  concert;  they  are  piling  it  up  here."  Well,  finally  a 
witness  comes  on  the  stand,  a  witness  whose  character  is  proved,  and  he 
says  there  ain't  a  word  of  it  so.  that  the  prisoner  never  had  on  that  duster; 
he  blacked  his  face  and  put  on  him  an  old  cutaway  coat,  turned  wrong  side 
out,  and  Phillips  says  there  ain't  a  word  of  it  so  about  his  wearing  th^  dus- 
ter. Then  they  dropped  it;  I  reckon  they  did,  and  they  will  drop  all  the 
rest  before  they  get  through  with  this  case.  Had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
murdef;  no,  and  Phillips  says  "1  wore  it;"  and  yet  they  have  been  arguing 
to  you  the  duster  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  Mr.  McLean  or  some 
one  argued  to  you  that  the  prisoner  McDougald  was  so  well  disguised  at  the 
concert  with  that  duster  over  him  that  nobody  knew  him.  I  don't  suppose 
they  did,  because  he  was  not  wearing  it.  and  Phillips  was  wearing  it;  they 
argue  that,  therefore,  he  could  disguise  himself  and  that  ought  to  hang  him; 
and  now  they  say  the  concert  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  Gentlemen, 
is  not  that  three  links  they  have  given  up  themselves  in  the  chain  ?  I  say 
is  not  that  three  links  that  they  themselves  have  given  up  in  this  chain  of 
evidence  ? 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  I  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  talk  to  yon.  The 
next  they  say  is,  that  he  left  Laurinburg  and  came  down  to  Maxton;  they 
tell  you  that  there  is  no  doubt  in  the  world  but  that  he  got  off  at  Maxton. 
What  do  you  do  with  McNair's  testimony — as  honest,  good,  upright  Robeson 
boy,  as  you  can  find  ?  What  are  you  going  to  do  with  his  testimony  ?  He 
says  he  carried  him  to  Alma  that  very  morning — did  not  have  him  on  his 
pass  book.  He  explains  that  to  you;  says  he  was  a  good  fellow,  and  he  did 
not  charge  him  anything;  went  on  with  him,  and  he  carried  him  to  Alma, 
and  one  of  the  train  hands  says  he  got  to  Alma.     Well,  now,  Cqttingham 


114  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

describes  him  that  day ;  Cottinghani  says  he  had  a  duster  and  three  pack- 
ages wrapped  with  newspaper  and  a  satchel;  he  sayS  he  got  on  at  Laurin- 
burg  and  got  ofif  at  Maxton.  I  am  not  going  to  misquote;  I  am  going  to  give 
5'ou  the  whole  of  it — '"  got  off  at  Maston."  He  describes  him;  Cole  saw  him 
at  the  water-tank;  told  about  the  same  thing,  that  "he  was  from  Laurin- 
burg,"  "  named  MeDougald,"  "  impression  is,  it  was  MeDougald,"  "  don't 
recognize  him  now."  Ah,  but  gentlemen,  he  don't  recognize  him  now;  there 
was  not  a  witness  put  upon  the  stand,  that  the}-  did  not  ask  '*  did  he  have  a 
beard  turned  out  then  ?  "  No,  he  had  not  turned  out  his  beard.  They  asked 
every  earthly  witness  that  came  upon  the  stand  whether  or  not  he  had 
turned  out  his  beard.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  advise  all,  if  this  is  going  to  be  the 
wa^-  to  hang  a  man,  if  you  are  going  to  be  hung  because  you  happened  to  wear;, 
a  moustache  once  and  have  turned  out  a  beard  now,  in  the  name  ot  Heaven 
don't  wear  it;  and  I  expect  nothing  else  than  a  convention  of  all  the  barbers 
in  North  Carolina,  and  for  them  to  pass  resolutions  of  thanks  and  put  it  in  a 
box  of  gold  on  a  silver  waiter  and  carrj-  it  to  the  gentlemen.  No,  sir;  if  they 
convict  this  man  simply  because  he  turned  out  his  beard  every  man  in  North 
Carolina  will  be  certain  to  keep  clean-shaved  after  this.  Well,  Luther  Mc- 
Cormick  saw  him;  don't  know  who  the  man  was.  Phillips  sa\\  him  at  the 
water-tank  on  the  21st,  duster  and  valise,  going  to  Red  Springs;  they  have 
got  to  prove  that  Phillips  saw  that  man  go  along,  saw  that  man  thereon  the 
2ist.  Phillips  sa3's  he  saw  him  there  on  the  21st  at  the  water-tank.  He 
goes  on  the  stand  afterwards  and  says  he  did  not  swear  it  was  the  21st;  he 
don't  know  whatdaj'  it  was.  It  was  proven  by  the  telegraph  operators,  it 
was  proven  by  the  gentlemen  at  the  yard,  it  was  proven  by  the  master  me- 
chanic, that  no  special  went  out  on  the  21st.  Well,  now,  there  is  no  doubt 
in  the  world,  then,  that  Phillips  did  hot  see  him  on  the  21st.  Then  pnt  that 
in  3'our  minds  now;  if  Phillips  did  not  see  him  on  the  21st,  then  all  these 
men  were  mistaken,  and  he  was  not  at  Maxton  at  the  water-tank  on  the 
2ist.  There  is  but  one  way  in  the  world  that  they  can  get  over  that,  and 
th?.t  is  to  take  their  witness  Phillips  and  say  he  committed  perjury;  well,  I 
think  they  have  had  enough  perjured  ones,  and  they  will  not  undertake  an- 
other. It  will  be  hard  on  their  witnesses,  because  he  was  the  ma.ster 
mechanic,  or  somebody  swore  that  poor  Phillips  had  a  good  character.  Now, 
gentlemen,  I  don't  want  you  to  forget  that;  I  say  that  if  Phillips  saw  him 
there  at  the  water-tank  there  can  be  but  one  of  two  things:  Phillips  had 
either  to  commit  deliberate  perjury  and  never  saw  him  at  all,  or  the  man  was 
not  there. 

We  have  shattered  into  a  thousand  atoms  three  of  the  links  in  the  chain 
of  evidence,  and  vet  they  say  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  guilt  of  the  pris- 
oner. Ah,  m3'  friends,  did  the  gentleman  that  first  addressed  yoti  tell  you 
an^-thing  about  Phillips  when  he  said  it  was  proven  beyond  a  doubt  that 
the  prisoner  w'as  at  the  water  tank  ?  Did  he  say  one  word  about  Phillips  ? 
Ah,  no.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  ask  your  particular  attention  here:  is  that  so? 
Did  he  tell  you  one  word?  Smith  saw  him;  Lockam^'  saw  a  man  at  the 
water-tank,  said  he  paid  his  wa}'  to  Shandon,  don't  know  the  defendant,  got 
o.i  at  the  water  tank.  What  does  DeVane  say?  Gentlemen,  remember : 
Did  the  gentleman  for  the  State — who  was  so  anxious  to  implant  in  your 
breast  the  feeling  that  the  prisoner  was  guilt}' — did  not  he  keep  Phillips 
from  ^'ou,  and  if  he  was  so  forgetful  as  that,  you  can  not  pay  any  attention 
— so  take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma.  Did  he  tell  you  about  DeVane  that 
they  had  here  as  a  witness  ?  He  did  not  suit  them  and  they  discharged  him, 
and  we  had  to  send  for  him.  Did  they  tell  you  one  word  about  DeVane? 
What  did  DeVane  swear  ?  DeVane  says  :  "  went  on  the  freight  train  on  the 
2ist;  spoke  with  a  man;  I  would  never  take  him  to  be  the  same  man;  my 
impression  is  that  it  is  not  the  same  man;  he  was  abovit  six  feet  one  inch 
tall,  had  on  dark  clothes,  did  not  see  any  duster;  I  remember  that  he  was 
about  my  height.  I  saw  no  special  train  on  that  day."  Does  not  that  raise 
doubts  in  your  mind?  Ah,  gentlemen,  w.as  it  fair  in  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  when  the  day  came  to  tr\'  this  case,  to  keep  both  of  those  witness- 
es from  you  ?  Was  it  fair  ?  They  never  said  one  word  concerning  either  one 
of  those'witnesses.     There  is  DeVane  swearing  that  he  does  not  believe  this 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoleif,  115 

man  is  the  one;  that  that  man  was  six  feet  one  inch.  Is  that  man  six  feet 
one  inch  ?  Unless  Phillips  commits  a  deliberate  perjury  he  is  not  the  man; 
and  unless  DeVane  is  totall}-  mistaken  he  is  not  the  man. 

Yet  my  friend  told  30U  that  if  he  had  one  doubt  in  his  mind,  he  would 
quit  the  case.  Well,  if  that  is  his  condition,  if  an  angel  should  come  from 
heaven  with  the  winds  of  the  evening  and  would  not  whisper  one  word 
against  him  he  would  believe  him  guilty  of  murder;  that  don't  raise  any 
doubts;  he  has  no  doubt  that  the  prisoner  was  the  man  that  got  on  the  train 
that  da}';  if  he  had  any  doubts  his  soft  and  tender  heart  would  so  move  him 
that  he  would  quit  his  cause.  Gentlemen,  I  expected  when  he  was  talking 
of  the  old  lad}-,  when  he  pra\ed  almost,  I  expected  to  see  his  e^-es  fill  with 
tears  and  his  face  work  with  emotion,  but  I  did  not  see  it.  I  heard  him 
afterwards,  like  Mark  Anthou}-  over  the  dead  body  of  Ciesar,  stab  her  to  the 
heart.  He  was  sorry  for  her.  Ought  the}-  to  have  kept  that  evidence  from 
you?  Was  it  fair  to  keep  it  from  3'ou  ?  Gentlemen,  in  the  first  place,  it 
was  bad  policy;  if  a  man  from  any  other  cause  on  earth  forgets  his  duty,  if 
it  is  nothing  in  the  world  only  to  do  justice  it  is  wrong  to  try  to  mislead  a 
jury.  You  are  good  men,  j'ou  are  men  with  good  common  sense;  and,  as 
Abraham  Lincoln  once  Sciid,  you  may  deceive  the  whole  people  a  short  time 
but  not  all  the  tinfb;  you  maj-  possibly  pick  out  one  man  and  make  such  an 
argument  as  may  deceive  one  and  mislead  the  whole  jurv  for  a  little  while, 
but  when  they  retire  to  the  secret  consultation  of  the  jury  room  the\-  will 
begin  to  think.  B  will  say  :  "did  not  the  witness  prove  this.'"  and  C  will 
say:  "look  here;  did  not  the  witness  prove  this  and  this?"  "Ah,  but  that 
attorney  did  not  tell  us  that.  Take  away  his  evidence,  his  argument — he  is 
not  at  all  fair  to  us  in  this  case." 

Then,  gentlemen,  we  will  go  to  another  point.  You  cannot  help  my 
charging  that  the  first  link  in  that  chain  is  broken.  Then  5'ou  have  McNair 
that  carried  him  to  Alma;  you  have  Phillips  against  him;  you  have  DeVane, 
the  State's  witness  that  the\-  did  not  want,  and  discharged  and  sent  home. 
Gentlemen,  you  don't  know  what  to  do.  It  is  presumed  they  knew  what 
that  witness  was  going  to  prove;  if  they  knew  that  in  a  case  of  life  and  death 
the  witness  was  going  to  swear  that  on  the  21st  he  did  not  believe  it  was 
this  prisoner,  in  the  name  of  Heaven,  was  it  right  to  send  him  home  ?  Then 
what  comes  next  ?  Then  they  go  on  and  the\-  say  that  the\-  have  traced 
this  man  to  Shandon.  One  Charlotte  Dumas  sa^-s  she  saw  a  man:  "had  on 
a  light  duster,  that  she  just  saw  him  going  down  the  road,  that  is  all  she 
saw,  something  was  strapped  across  his  back;  they  have  man}'  stangers  at 
Shandon."  jNIcPhail,  a  good  man  says,  "I  did  not  even  see  his  face,  onlj' 
his  back;  from  his  back  I  supposed  him  to  ht  a  white  man."  He  sa^'s  he 
had  on  a  dove-colored  duster.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  is  a  remarkable  duster 
— but  the}'  say  they  don't  care  anything  about  the  duster  now.  It  is  worse 
than  the  Arabian  Knights;  it  changes  from  a  light  to  a  dove-colored  duster 
in  walking  a  hundred  yards  down  the  railroad.  I  will  pass  on.  Then  they 
see  a  man  down  the  road  —presto,  change!  he  has  upon  him  a  duster,  and  he 
is  dressed  up,  as  they  say,  like  a  negro.  Who  sees  him  there?  Cobb  sees 
him  there.  You  remember  his  description:  he  only  saw  his  back  as  he  was 
going  on  down  the  road.  Fannie  Mears  saw  him  there;  Mrs.  Humphrey 
saw  him  there,  and  she  swears  there  was  nothing  particular  about  his  ap- 
pearance; afterwards,  poor  woman,  she  got  him  the  blackest  looking  man 
she  ever  saw,  and  that  he  glistened,  that  he  looked  Ifke  a  white  man  blacked; 
and  yet  upon  examination  before  the  Magistrate  she  swore  expressly  that  he 
was  a  black  man.  Conoley  saw  him  about  one  or  two  hours  by  sun,  about 
a  mile  from  Conoley's;  duster,  package  on  shoulder,  black,  glistened;  asked 
where  the  road  was  to  Fayetteville,  whiskers  all  over  his  face.  Sallie 
Wilkes  saw  him.  Gentlemen,  I  want  you  to  pay  particular  attention  to  Sal- 
lie  Wilkes'  seeing  him.  Sallie  Wilkes  saw  him  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile 
of  the  hou.se;  and,  gentlemen,  if  Sallie  Wilkes,  as  a  witness,  is  to  be  be- 
lieved, it  was  not  Daniel  McDougald;  nobody  has  called  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Sallie  Wilkes  swore  he  was  as  tall  as  Sim.  Conoley.  She  swore 
he  had  on  dark  pants;  they  say  the  pants  were  pepper-and-salt.  She  swore 
he  was  as  tall  as  Sim.  Conoley,  and  it  is  in  evidence  before  you  that  he  was 


116  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

an  inch  or  two  lower  than  Sim.  Conoley;  that  is  expressly  what  she  swore 
to  you.  And  there  is  another  thing,  gentlemen,  that  I  had  just  as  well  call 
your  attention  to — if  I  am  wrong  correct  me — and  that  is  that  with  all  the 
recollection  that  I  have  of  the  evidence  at  Mill  Prong,  nobody  swore  that  he 
looked  like  a  white  man  blacked.  At  Mill  Prong  everybody  swore  he 
was  a  negro;  at  Mill  Prong  the  verdict  was  that  the  man  was  killed  by  a  ne- 
gro calling  himself  Lum  Johnson.  Therefore  all  this  idea  that  he  looked 
like  a  white  man  blacked  has  been  brought  to  the  witnesses  by  the  talk  out- 
side; it  shows  3^ou  that  Mr.  Lyon  was  mistaken  when  he  told  3'ou  that  Me- 
Dougald said  that  the  parties  at  the  house  said  that  he  looked  like  a  white 
man  blacked.  It  was  after  he  saw  Mr.  Lyon  that  it  was  heard  that  it  was  a 
white  man  blacked.  Take  all  the  evidence,  take  every  one  of  these  witnesses, 
and  the}'  swear  it  was  a  negro.  Millard  Moore  was  a  witness  that  they  had 
there,  gentlemen;  why  did  not  they  put  Millard  Moore  on  the  stand  ?  I  say 
on  that  trial  not  a  soul  supposed  he  was  a  white  man  blacked;  therefore  I 
sa}'  Lyon  must  be  mistaken.  He  has  heanl  so  much  of  it,  and  he  has  con- 
cluded that  the  prisoner  told  him  a  thing  that  never  was  heard  of  at  that 
time. 

This  has  been  a  remarkable  case.  Ah  me!  I  used  to  think  it  was  hard 
to  remember  facts,  but  if  everything  is  true  that  has  been  sworn  in  this  case, 
God  has  given  us  remarkable  memories;  yes.  He  has  given  us  remarkable 
memories — that  a  man  should  remember  the  very  words  that  a  man  said  to 
him  on  the  ist  day  of  May,  1891,  and,  furthermore,  that  Conductor  Welsh 
should  remember  positively  that  on  the  21st  day  of  April  this  man  did  not 
come  up  with  him  on  the  train.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  there  had  been  any- 
thing to  impress  it  upon  Welsh's  mind,  you  may  have  thought  about  it  that 
those  gentlemen  would  never  have  let  it  pass  by — they  would  have  asked 
Welsh :  ' '  What  impressed  it  upon  your  mind  ?  It  has  been  a  long  time  since 
the  2ist  of  April;  what  circumstance  brought  it  to  your  mind  immediately 
afterwards?  "  But  never  a  syllable  came  from  them;  therefore  we  are  to  be- 
lieve that  therewas  nothing  to  impress  it  upon  Welsh's  mind;  that  Welsh 
can  tell  5'ou  that  the  prisoner  did  not  come  up  on  the  21st;  and  when  asked 
by  Bro.  Shaw  if  he  could  name  a  single  passenger  that  did  come  up  on  the 
2ist:  "  I  do  not  know  who  was  on  the  train  on  the  21st;  I  cannot  give  the 
name  of  a  single  human  being  that  came  up  on  my  train  on  the  21st  day  of 
April,"  and  still  he  swears  the  prisoner  did  not. 

Then,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  the  washing.  I  do  not  know  what  to  say 
about  that.  Bro.  McLean  said  it  was  perjured  evidence,  and  he  would  not 
argue  it,  but  Bro.  Neal  stood  to  it  and  said  he  would  take  it.  It  could  not 
hurt  Neal — Neal  stood  it.  I  tell  you,  when  fellows  get  to  fooling  with  com- 
panies they  make  them  swallow  anything.  And,  gentlemen,  he  gave  one  of 
the  most  wonderful  circumstances  that  ever  I  heard  of  in  my  life.  It  was  in 
evidence  that  it  was  about  18  or  ig  miles  from  where  the  murder  was  com- 
mitted to  this  negro's  house;  it  is  proven  to  }'ou  that  he  must  pass  numerous 
swamps,  it  is  proven  to  you  that  the  clothes  w;re  left  at  Lumber  River,  a 
beautiful  .stream  to  Avash  in,  the  brightest  water  3'ou  ever  saw,  and  he 
passed  that  lovely  water,  and  he  passed  through  the  swamps,  and  did 
not  wash.  Whj^  was  it  ?  Bro.  Neal  told  you  that  the  moon  was 
shining,  and  he  was  afraid  somebody  would  see  him  there  going  into 
the  swamp,  or  that  somebody  would  see  him  at  the  mill,  and  he  came 
to  a  house — the  witness  said  it  was  a  while  after  day  when  he  saw 
the  man — he  came  to  this  house  on  one  of  the  most  public  roads  in  the  coun- 
ty of  Robeson,  did  not  go  inside  the  house,  but  the  negro  brought  water  on 
the  outside  of  the  house;  he  stood  there  on  the  outside  of  the  house  and 
washed  himself  in  public  view  of  the  road.  That  is  Bro.  Neal's  theory-;  well, 
if  all  his  theories  are  as  weak  as  that  we  had  just  as  well  stop.  Is  not  that 
true?  Check  me;  it  I  go  wrong  check  me.  When  you  get  into  that  theory, 
say  to  yourself :  "Has  French  dealt  honestly  with  me?"  In  the  name  of 
Heaven,  it  is  not  I  speaking;  I  am  a  poor  individual,  I  am  nothing  in  this 
cause,  but  I  represent  the  prisoner,  the  defendant,  D.  A.  MeDougald,  and 
through  him  am  an  humble  instrument  put  in  his  hands  by  the  law  of  God; 
I  am  talking  to  you  for  D.  A.  MeDougald. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  117 

But,  gentlemen,  let  us  go  on  in  this  cause.  I  doubt  not  but  that  you. 
think  :  "That  fellow  French  says  he  is  tired,  but,  Heavens,  how  he  is  hold- 
ing out  !"  For  two  weeks  I  have  had  the  strain,  and  you  know  not  what 
the  mental  strain  is;  knowing  for  one  or  two  days  that  sometime  you  have 
got  to  speak,  and  you  don't  know  how  it  is  to  keep  up  the  temperament  and 
the  nerve  to  that  point,  because  if  it  once  goes  down  it  is  hard  to  raise;  if 
you  have  ever  tried  it  you  know,  too,  that  after  it  is  once  sunk  it  is  hard  to 
bring  to  the  surface.  Now,  I  think  3-ou  are  pretty  well  satisfied  with  Gilles- 
pie; I  want  to  tell  you  one  thing;  if  he  has  not  a  little  of  this  insurance 
money  the  fellow  ought  to  get  it,  that  is  certain;  he  ought  to  have  a  little  of 
it;  but  he  has  got  fo  watch  the  Insurance  Companj^  close — if  he  don't  they  will 
pass  a  counterfeit  bill  upon  him;  just  as  sure  as  3'ou  are  born,  he  has  got  to 
watch  them  close;  he  ought  to  be  paid,  and  if  he  has  not  got  it  he  ought  to 
have  it,  and  I  am  sorry  Bro.  Neal  has  left  because  he  is  the  leader  in  that 
line;  not  that  he  himself  would  do  anything  wrong.  Well  now,  let  us  see; 
here  is  John  Williams  who  e.xpressl}^  swears: — and  he  is  as  honest  a  negro 
as  I  ever  saw — "I  was  there  that  morning,  I  got  up  at  da\'break,  I  got  my 
breakfast,  Gillespie  ^^as  not  there  and  I  fed  Gillespie's  hog."  My  friend 
has  said  that  one  negro  would  not  call  another  "boss,"  and  there  never  was 
a  negro  that  would  feed  another  negro's  hog  if  the  other  fellow  was  there. 
He  says  :  "I  did  not  see  him;  I  got  up  and  cooked  my  breakfast,  I  went  out 
and  staid  there  until  half  an  hour  after  sun,  and  if  this  negro  was  there  why 
I  did  not  see  him."  But  why  should  I  waste  my  words  upon  a  perjured 
witness?  Why  waste  my  words  upon  a  witness  that  passed  before  you 
covered  with  infam3'  and  shame?     I  will  quit  him. 

,  Let  us  go  to  something  el.se.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  black  on  the 
face.  I  am  going  out,  I3ecau.se  mv  general  has  ordered  me  to  follow  the 
enemy;  if  I  fail  it  will  be  becau.se  God  has  not  given  me  the  power.  Let  us 
talk  a  little  about  the  black  on  the  face.  Ah,  Herring  !  He  is  a  salted  her- 
ring; there  is  no  doubt  that  Herring  saw  him;  yes,  but  poor  Herring  made  a 
mistake,  and  the  Solicitor  led  him  in.  Mr.  Solicitor,  3'ou  will  allow  me  to 
call  a  little  thing  to  j-our  attention.  Herring  swore  that  he  had  a  wide- 
brimmed  hat  with  the  brim  turned  out;  the  Solicitor  picked  up  a  hat  and 
said,  "  Mr.  Herring,  was  it  a  hat  like  that?"  He  said,  no,  it  was  a  wide- 
brimmed  hat  with  the  brim  turned  down.  Now,  it  is  in  evidence  expressly 
that  the  hat  with  the  brim  turned  down  was  at  the  creek.  The  prisoner  did 
not  get  it  until  the  Saturday-  after,  and  that  w-as  Wednesda}?;  it  was  the  Sat- 
urday after  before  the  prisoner  got  that  hat  with  the  brim  turned  down,  but 
Herring  thought  he  had  it  when  the  Solicitor  showed  him  the  hat.  It  is 
bad,  gentlemen,  is  it  not?  Brother,  have  I  stepped  out  one  line  from  the 
sworn  testimony?  But  there  is  another  little  thing.  Blacking  was  to  be 
plainly  seen;  they  tell  \'ou  all  the.se  witnesses  did  not  see  it  because  they 
were  not  looking  for  blacking;  McLearr  argues  that  these  witnesses  were  not 
looking  particularly  for  blacking.  Why  was  Herring  looking  particularly 
for  blacking?  Wliat  made  him  search  particularly  for  blacking  !  Herring 
said  he  had  a  seedj'  appeai'ance.  Nobody-  else  said  he  had  a  seed}-  appear- 
ance, and  he  walked  like  an  old  man.  Herring  heard  that  he  represented 
an  old  man  in  the  concert;  he  jumped  too  far;  he  put  a  hat  on  the  man  two 
days  before  the  prisoner  got  it.  A  seedy  appearance.  He  sa^'s  he  was  a 
member  of  IMcDougald's  Sunday  School  class,  that  McDougald  was  the 
vSuperintendent  of  that  Sunday'  Sclwol,  and  that  he  went  there  every  Sun- 
day', and  it  was  proved  positively  that  McDougald  was  Secretary  and  Treas- 
urer, never  did  have  a  class,  and  that  Herring  only  floated  into  that  Sunday 
School  once  in  his  life.  Hargrove  and  Aleck  McKinnon  prove  it — one  as 
good  a  Scotchman  as  ever  drew  breath.  Gentlemen,  don't  3'ou  reckon  this 
salted  herring  has  been  feeling  a  little  of  it;  but  he  has  got  to  look  at  it  well, 
he  has  got  to  examine  it  well. 

Let  us  pass  on  a  little  further  about  this  blacking.  Gentlemen,  they 
have  searched  the  earth,  and  now  thej'  want  an  Indian,  and  the  onlj^  rea.son 
they  don't  get  him  is  that  there  is  a  law  in  the  ITnited  States  that  prevented 
them  from  carrying  out  the  Comanchee  Indian.  The\'  have  emplo\-ed 
some  counsel  here  that  leaped  into  the  ring  with  a  tomahawk  and  scalping' 


118  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

knife,  and  the  greatest  trophy  they  conld  have  would  be  to  go  home  with 
poor  McDougald's  scalp  hanging  to  their  side.  But,  thank" Heaven,  the 
hair  is  growing  and  will  grow  on  McDougald's  scalp  for  man}-  years  to  come; 
they  are  not  going  to  get  that  scalp— that  scalp  is  not  to  be  gotten.  Let  us 
go  on  with  the  blacking;  Herring  saw  hiui,  Greenwald  saw  him,  who 
was  on  the  other  side — have  the}'  no  others  but  them  ?  Yes,  away  back  on 
ihat  road  some  fellow  saw  him;  oh,  yes,  he  was  riding  in  an  o.x-cart,  he  saw 
some  white  on  his  face  and  on  his  hands.  Would  hoi  be  such  a  fool  as  to 
black  himself  and  leave  white  spots  on  his  hands?  Not  one  word  at  the 
Mill  Prong  trial  did  he  swear  about  that;  why,  nobody  dreamed  it  was  a 
white  man  blacked — that  is  a  theory  started  since  the  Italian  hand  of  this 
Insurance  Companj-  has  started  out;  that  has  come  on  since  that  day.  A 
white  man  blacked.  Well,  now  let  us  hear  who  is  on  the  other  side.  Mr. 
Powers  says  he  saw  him.  Could  he  see  him  ?  He  says  the  man  was  on  the 
platform,  and  he  stooped  low  in  front  of  him  and  looked  him  right  in  the 
eyes.  If  this  fellow  Herring  is  to  be  believed,  that  the  blacking  was  plainly 
to  be  seen,  would  not  Powers  have  seen  it?  But  Powers  is  covered  with 
dirt;  he  is  an  engineer,  and  the  fellow  is  so  used  to  dirt  he  can't  tell  when 
he  sees  a  clean  face.  Well,  gentlemen,  some  of  the  counsel  believe  he  ought 
to  be  hung  for  that,  and  when  he  went  to  Laurinburg  and  his  face  was  red 
and  clean,  he  ought  to  be  hung  for  it.  How  was  he  to  satisfy  the  gentle- 
men ?  It  he  is  clean  he  washed  it  with  soap,  and  if  he  has  black  on  it 
he  certainly  ought  to  be  hung.  How  is  he  to  satisfy  you?  Powers  said  he 
saw  no  black,  nothing  unusual  in  his  appearance.  He  did  not  see  anything 
seedy,  said  he  looked  neat  and  nice,  and  he  saw  him  at  Maxton  before  he 
got  on  the  train  to  go  down. 

Gentlemen,  I  tell  you  I  have  been  at  the  bar  twenty-one  years,  and  I 
never  saw  such  an  attempt  to  take  a  man's  life.  The  most  trivial  circum- 
.stance  is  worked  into  the  case  that  has  nothing  on  God's  earth  to  do  with  it, 
and  is  brought  out  as  proving  the  prisoner  guilty.  But  they  ask  :  "Mr. 
Powers,  did  you  not  say  that  he  was  drunk  ?"  He  says  :  "no."  Gentlemen, 
where  are  your  witnesses?  If  you  knew  you  could  not  contradict  him,  was 
it  £air  to  ask  him,  and  if  you  could  contradict  him,  the  witness  ought  to 
have  been  put  on  the  stand.  He  says,  "No,  I  did  not  tell  any  such  thing; 
I  never  told  anything  at  all."  They  ask  Phillips:  "did  you  not  say  once 
there  was  something  wrong?"  "I  did  not  say  any  such  thing,  some  of 
them  came  to  me  and  wanted  to  know  if  it  was  not  so;  I  told  him,  no;  every 
settlement  I  had  ever  had  with  him  was  fair  and  honest."  They  struck  the 
wrong  man  when  they  struck  Phillips  with  insurance  money.  Of  coarse  I 
do  not  pretend  to  say  that  these  gentlemen  here  personally  have  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  it;  they  may  know  nothing,  and  I  do  not  suppose  did  know 
anything  about  it,  but  I  say  there  is  evidence  here,  and  strong  evidence,  that 
outside  influence  has  been  used.  Well,  gentlemen,  then  Sellers  saw  him, 
McGirt  saw  him;  that  is  three,  and  there  are  but  two  on  the  other  side. 
Crowson  saw  him  next  day — State's  witness — and  McCormick  saw  him 
next  dav,  and  they  don't  prove  it;  iive  saw  no  black  on  him,  and  two  swore 
the  black  was  on  him.  Well,  gentlemen,  cut  out  another  link — gone  like  a 
summer  dream.  Is  it  possible  that  you  believe  that?  I  don't  talk  about 
doubts,  but,  gentlemen,  if  it  was  a  civil  case  his  Honor  would  tell  you  that 
if  you  believe  those  witnesses  the  burden  of  the  proof  is  on  the  plaintiff,  and 
if  you  find  the  evidence  evenly  divid^l  you  must  find  for  the  defendant. 
How  is  it  when  they  are  seeking  the  blood  of  the  prisoner?  They  must 
prove  it  to  you  beyond  a  rea.sonable  doubt,  and  yet  they  have  the  face  to 
come  up  here  and  ask  you  to  believe  that  he  was  blacked,  when  two  men 
only  swear  he  was,  three  swear  positivel}^  he  was  not,  and  two  other  wit- 
nesses they  are  afraid  to  ask  anything  about  it.  Have  you  any  doubt  about 
that  blacking?  None  on  earth;  can  not  have  any  doubt.  The  conductor 
that  came  down  with  him  said  that  he  had  no  black;  he  was  not  looking  for 
it.     Why  was  Herring  pr3ang  out  for  black  spots? 

Now,  gentlemen,  come  to  the  clothes.     A  negro  found  the  clothes.     He 

found   them   at   the  bridge.     Now,  listen,  gentlemen.     Have  you  noticed 

■  the  prisoner  ?    Does  his  eye  betoken  that  he  is  an  idiot  or  maniac  ?    If  he  is 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  119 

not,  then  he  did  not  put  those  clothes  here.  Recollect  where  the  clothes 
weie  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge;  here  is  a  witness  says  that  part  of  them 
were  in  the  water  in  Lumber  River,  three  or  four  feet  from  the  bridge,  six  or 
seven  feet  from  the  public  road — therefore  to  be  seen  from  the  public  road  by 
the  passers-b\-.  Would  he  have  left  them  there?  How  man}- seconds  would 
it  have  taken  him  to  have  folded  them  up,  put  a  piece  of  wood  or  a  rock  to 
them,  and  thrown  them  in  Lumber  River,  and  the\'  would  have  been  hid  for 
ever?  Yet  the\'  tell  you  the  prisoner  put  them  there.  Gentlemen,  are  your 
hearts  so  steeled  to  everything  like  mercy  that  you  would  have  a  madman 
hung?  because  if  the  prisoner  did  it  he  has  lost  his  reason,  and  madness'  has 
taken  possession  of  his  brain.  Yet  they  ask  you  upon  that  evidence  to  take 
the  prisoner's  life.  What  more  do  we  find  about  the  clothes  ?  Now,  do  they 
tell  yi)u  this  ?  On  the  Frida\'  afterwards,  James  McBryde  got  on  the  train 
and  the  prisoner  was  on;  he  asked  the  prisoner  something  about  it;  he  says 
the  prisoner  did  not  talk  much;  but  the  prisoner  afterwards  got  up,  went  on 
his  seat  and  talked  with  him  all  the  way  to  Lumberton;  could  he  have 
talked  any  further?  I  do  not  know  how,  because  James  McBryde  got  off 
there.  There  is  another  thing  that  struck  me.  If  I  am  mistaken,  tell  me — 
I  got  it  that  James  ^IcBryde  said  when  he  got  on  the  train  he  thought  he 
would  go  to  Wilmington,  but  he  chaftged  his  mind  and  stopped  at  Lumber- 
ton.  The  prisoner  went  on  down  to  Wilmiufton.  Why  did  he  go  back? 
Have  the  other  counsel  told  you  of  it?  ILive  the  other  counsel  told  you  that 
James  McBryde  told  him  those  clothes  were  there  and  he  had  better  get 
them.  When  he  got  down  to  Wilmington  he  got  to  thinking  about  it  and 
he  says,  "  well,  those  clothes  are  here,  I  had  better  go  back  and  get  them," 
and  he  jumped  on  the  train  and  went  next  day  and  got  the  clothes.  But  let 
us  go  back  a  moment.  Bro.  Neal  saj-s  there-  was  certainly'  some  secrecy 
about  getting  on  at  the  water-tank;  oh,  jes,  there  was  secrecy  in  that, 
and  he  says  that  it  was  certainly  Daniel  McDougald.  W^hy  ?  Because  Dan- 
iel McDougald  told  Cole  his  name  was  McDougald  from  Laurinburg;  he 
^sked  him  if  he  had  an\'  relatives  in  Cumberland,  and  he  said,  he  did  not 
know;  yet  he  was  secret  about  it;  how  in  the  name  of  Heaven  covild  he  have 
been  any  more  public  ?  They  condemn  him  for  getting  on  at  the  water-tank 
and  then  condemn  him  for  telling  all  about  himself.  What  did  he  do?  He 
saw  that  there  were  a  good  man}-  negroes  about  there,  and  .he  took  the 
clothes;  and  what  did  he  do  in  going  along  ?  He  saw  a  man  that  had  known 
him  all  his  life;  ifanj-one  could  recognize  the  clothes,  I  should  think  he 
would,  and  that  was  Mac  McKinnon.  He  showed  them  to  his  old  friend 
Mac  and  said,  "  here  are  the  clothes  that  have  been  found  there,"  and  he  did 
say,  "  Mac,  don't  that  look  like  somebod}'  has  been  plowing  in  these 
clothes?  '  "No,  I  don't  think  so."  But  it  was  in  evidence  now  some  wit- 
ness said  that  the  pants  were  much  worn.  Well  now,  I  think  an}' of  you 
might  wear  pants  that  were  much  worn,  and  I  do  not  think  that  because  a 
man  plows  and  because  he  goes  down  the  river  with  a  raft  that  he  cannot 
wear  as  good  clothes  as  anyone.  That  seems  to  be  the  argument  of  friend 
McLean;  I  do  not  agree  with  him;  I  think  some  of  you  men  that  plow  can 
wear  as  good  clothes  as  we  do,  and  better  too  I  believe.  Some  of  30U  men 
that  go  down  the  river  and  lead  the  active  life  of  a  raftsman,  some  of  our 
greatest  men  did  it;  I  think  they  said  old  Abe  started  out  rafting,  and  they 
said  he  got  to  wearing  prett}'  good  clothes  after  awhile,  though  he  was  a 
sort  of  a  hard  looking  fellow.  But  they  say,  no  you  farmers  and  raftsmen, 
j-ou  cannot  wear  as  good  clothes,  therefore  it  was  not  a  raftsman  and  it  was 
not  a  plowman  that  wore  tliose  clothes. 

Well,  now,  let  us  see.  He  went  on  then,  and  he  met  an  impertinent  fel- 
low that  was  a  blacksmith;  he  wanted  to  know  all  about  the  clothes  and  he 
don't  show  them  to  him,  and  therefore  be  is  guilty  and  hang  him.  There  is 
Hodgin;  Hodgin  wanted  to  know  something  about  it,  and  he  says  he  don't 
remember  what  he  said  to  him,  and  he  went  on,  strange  to  say,  gentlemen, 
he  went  to  John  Conoley's.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  was  wonderful;  it  was  a 
wonderful  thing  for  Dan.  McDougald  to  go  to  his  own  uncle's;  he  went  up 
to  McBryde's;  he  left  theclothes,  like  most  anybody  would  do,  in  the  buggy, 
and  during  that  night  somebod}-  came  and  stole  the  clothes.     Well,  do  they 


120  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

contradict  that  ?  There  was  a  good,  honest  country  boy,  and  the  State  tried 
b}^  cross-examination  to  lead  him  around  the  path,  but  he  stuck  to  the  truth, 
he  carried  out  the  old  lady's  injunction — that  has  not  been  done  all  in  this 
case— he  stuck  to  the  truth.  He  saj-s  that  his  father  and  the  prisoner  went 
to  bed  that  night;  that  after  his  uncle  Simeon  had  been  murdered  they  had 
taken  particular  caution  to  fasten  the  door  with  a  screw,  which  the  prisoner 
knew  nothing  about;  he  says  there  was  but  one  window,  that  had  no  glass  in 
it;  the  hinges  to  the  shutter  were  off  and  the  shutter  was  propped  up,  and 
nobod}-  could  get  out  without  pushing  down  the  shutter,  and  he  says  he  did 
not  go  out  that  night.  Honest  bo}-  that  he  was,  tired  from  the  labors  of  the 
da}-,  with  a  good  conscience  and  an  honest  heart,  God  gave  him  refreshing 
sleep,  and  he  admitted  it  squarely  and  fairh^  "  I  slept  soundly;  "  if  he  had 
wanted  to  lie,  he  would  have  said  he  was  restless.  The  counsel  asked  him, 
"did  not  5-ou  get  up  two  or  three  times  in  the  night?"  He  thought  he 
would  catch  him,  but  no,  "I  did  not  get  up,  I  slept  soundly." 

Well,  he  goes  to  McBrj-de,  and  McBr3'de  sa3's,  "Look  here,  Dan.,  Mil- 
lard Moore  or  some  of  them  in  the  communit}^  are  about  fixing  this  thing 
on  3-ou."  And  afterwards  ^IcBr3-de  said — and  see  with  what  learning  and 
what  astuteness  the3"  are  keeping  from  3-ou  ever3'  word  of  evidence  in  favor 
of  him.  Do  the3-  tell  3-ou  that  j\IcBr3'de  said,  "I  was  joking?"  No,  no,  it 
don't  drop  from  one  of  them;  when  4;he3^  have  talked  to  3'ou,  none  of  them 
have  told  3-ou  that  McBr3^de  said  he  was  joking.  Well,  that  satisfied  him 
and  he  just  did  not  make  any  repl3^  but  said,  "I  can  prove  where  I  was," 
and  that  satisfied  them.  But,  gentlemen,  did  3'ou  never  come  to  this,  to 
w'here  3'ou  hear  a  thing,  and  the  fellow  tells  5-0U  something  that  satisfies 
3'ou,  but  afterwards  3'ou  begin  to  doubt  the  explanation,  and  3'ou  begin  to 
get  a  little  more  frightened- about  it;  he  goes  on  and  that  ver3'  night  the 
clothes  are  stolen.  Then  fear  seizes  him  and  he  sa3-s  to  himself:  "Look 
here,  the  man  that  killed  Sim.  Conole}^  is  after  me;  I  have  got  the  clothes 
that  I  suppose  he  wore,  and  he  thinks  I  am  on  his  track  and  he  is  after  me 
and  will  murder  me."  Fear  seizes  him,  and  he  says  to  his  uncle,  "I  am  afraid 
to  go  alone,  send  some  one  with  me;"  and  they  take  a  bo3'  and  send  with 
him.  The}'  adopt  the  rule  of  Henry  Lowry.  "Dan.,  don't  go  like  3'ou  went, 
go  a  different  road;  I  will  send  m}'  son  with  3-ou  a  part  of  the  wa3-."  He 
sends  him  with  him,  and  if  it  is  not  in  evidence  discard  it;  if  I  get  out  of  line 
stop  me.  He  goes  along  then,  and  whom  does  he  see  next?  He  sees 
Purcell,  tells  Purcell  that  the  clothes  are  stolen,  that  he  was  frightened,  that 
his  uncle's  son  had  come  with  him  two  or  three  miles.  I  am  not  surprised 
that  they  forgot  to  sa3^  gentlemen,  that  he  wanted  to  get  out  of  the  countr}'; 
this  comes  from  their  own  witness,  not  ours,  Purcell;  he  told  him  that  he 
wanted  to  get  out  of  the  countr3',  said  that  he  was  alarmed,  that  he  was  afraid 
he  would  be  killed.  This  occurred  on  April  30th;  April  26th,  the  clothes  were 
stolen;  April  30th  he  tells  Purcell  of  his  fear,  that  fear  had  taken  possession  of 
his  heart  and  he  wanted  to  leave  the  countr3'.  Gentlemen,  he  just  had  be- 
fore him  a  most  brutal  murder;  he  heard  of  his  uncle  being  shot  down  in 
cold  blood,  he  knew  that  he  had  these  clothes  that  were  supposed  to  be  the 
criminal's;  he  supposed  the  criminal  was  on  his  track.  Well,  who  else  did 
he  see?  He  saw  Johnson,  and  told  him  the  same  thing.  McBr3-de  told  him 
that  if  he  did  not  mind  Millard  Moore  v.'ould  fasten  it  on  him.  Well,  then, 
•when  was  it  Livingston  saw  him  ?  It  was  the  30th  when  he  saw  Purcell 
and  tells  him  that  fear  had  seized  his  soul  and  he  must  flee  the  country.  On 
the  ist  day  of  Ma3'^  he  gets  on  the  train.  What  does  he  sa}'  ?  "I  got  on  the 
train  to  go  to  see  Major  Shaw;"  Livingston  sees  him  on  the  train  and  Liv- 
ingston sa3'S :  "I  will  be  one  of  five  men  to  go  and  hang  the  man  that  is 
guilt3'  of  this  deed."  Unfortunatel3-  mobs  do  not  always  decide  right;  when 
passions  are  once  aroused  in  a  man,  thev-  are  the  most  fierce  animals  that 
are  known.  Wh3'  is  it  so  ?  What  did  Hargrove  tell  3-ou  ?  Hargrove  sa3^s 
he  had  a  man  charged  with  the  crime,  and  the  crowd  said  they  were  going 
to  hmch  him.  Hargrove  said,  "if  you  h^nch  Kelly  3'ou  will  be  just  as 
guilty  of  murder  as  though  3'ou  shot  Conoley."  So  Kelly  was  discharged. 
Therefore,  was  it  his  innocence  that  saved  him  from  the  mob  ?  Ah,  no. 
Kelly  was  to  be  mobbed,  although  in  a  few  moments  afterwards  he  was 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  121 

tried  and  set  free,  though  the  mob — and  I  shall  tell  5'ou  of  mobs  afterwards 
— cried  out  more  and  more,  "hang  him  !  hang  him!"  Did  he  have  any 
other  reason  to  be  frightened?  We  are  told  by  one  or  two  witnesses  that  it 
was  known  in  Laurinburg  that  this  man  IMillard  INIoore  had  threatened  his 
life;  he  knew  furthermore  that  he  had  told  McBryde  that  he  believed  IMillard 
Moore  killed  his  uncle;  he  knew  Millard  Moore  had  enough  to  arouse  his 
passion;  but  I  believe  they  will  tell  j-ou  Millard  Moore  was  in  jail,  but  he 
was  not  certain  that  the  jail  bars  were  alwa3-s  to  keep  Millard  Moore.  It 
had  been  heard,  it  is  positively'  in  evidence,  that  on  the  Friday  before  he  left 
on  Monday  it  w.as  generally  whispered  that  "the  mob  is  out."  Ah,  gentle- 
men, vou  have  been  told  that  that  arose  because  they  knew  the  prisoner  had 
left;  it  was  not  so;  it  was  not  known  in  Laurinburg  that  he  had  left  until 
Monday  evening;  you  have  the  best  authority  of  the  best  men  in  Laurinburg 
that  he  would  be  back  on  Monday  evening,  and  they  would  go  down  to  that 
train  to  protect  him  from  the  niol);  therefore  it  won't  do  to  say  this  cry  of 
the  mob  was  raised  because  the}-  thought  he  had  left.  The  Slierifif  of  the 
County  of  Robeson  was  up  there,  he  did  not  think  he  had  left,  he  would  not 
have  come  up  there  if  the  man  had  left. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  they  charge  us  with  the  first  falsehood  they  have 
caught  the  prisoner  in;  and  I  am  going  to  be  fair  with  you.  He  went  to 
Wilmington;  he  told  three  or  four  people  that  he  went  to  Wilmington  on 
Tuesday.  Who  swears  he  did  not  ?  Is  there  a  single  human  being  that  has 
made  a  contradictory  statement  about  it  ?~  Who  says  he  did  not?  The 
counsel  for  the  prosecution,  the  two  that  have  addressed  3'ou,  and  have  made 
themselves  witnesses,  sa\-  he  did  not  go  to  Wilmington.  They  are  not  wit- 
nesses, as  the}'  have  not  been  sworn,  you  must  not  mind  what  they  tell  you; 
it  is  out  of  the  records,  3'ou  must  check  them  up.  Say,  gentlemen,  3'ou  are 
not  witnesses,  I  can  not  pay  any  attention  to  what  you  say  about  this  thing. 
Now,  who  says  he  did  not  go  to  Wilmington  ?  Not  a  soul  on  earth  except 
the  coun.sel.  Could  not  he  have  gone  to  Wilmington  ?  He  did  go  to  Wil- 
mington one  evening  and  come  back  the  next  soon  after  that.  Did  not  he 
do  that  ?  Whether  he  was  at  Alma  or  whether  he  was  at  Maxton,  could  not 
he  have  got  on  the  evening  train  and  gone  down  to  Wilmington  and  come 
back  exactly  like  he  did  ?  Who  swears  he  did  not  ?  Anybody'  but  Welsh  ? 
Welsh  is  a  good  man,  but  I  say  it  is  impossible  for  Welsh  to  remember  that  that 
man  was  not  on  his  train  on  the  21st  day  of  April  unless  there  was  something 
particular  at  that  time  to  press  it  on  his  mind.  But  suppose  Welsh  is  right; 
Welsh  says  :  "  I  do  not  know  but  what  an  extra  might  have  come  up  that 
night."  What  does  iie  say,  gentlemen  ?  "I  am  weary  and  tired,"  and  be- 
cause, after  traveling  all  night,  he  was  lying  down  at  12  o'clock,  the  counsel 
say  he  ought  to  be  hung  for  that.  Then  we  come  to  a  very  important  part 
of  this  case.  Now,  they  charge  it  upon  us,  and  they  ask  us  who  was  it  that 
went  along  there  unless  it  was  the  prisoner?  They  have  virtuall}'  asked  us, 
and  I  expect  \'OU  may  ask  youselves  when  you  retire  to  the  jury  room,  why 
did  not  they  prove  that  somebody  else  killed  Simeon  Conoley?  Why  did 
not  thej'  prove  that  .somebod}'  else  had  a  grudge  against  him,  why  did  not 
they  prove  that  somebody  else  had  an  opportunity  to  kill  him,  why  did  not 
they  prove  that  vSim.  Conoley  said  he  thought  somebody  else  would  kill 
him?  I  will  answer  3-ou  wh}';  we  attempted  it,  and  the  State  said  it  is 
against  the  law,  and  ^-ou  can  not  do  it;  lie  shut  our  mouths,  and  now  he 
complains  because  we  do  not  open  the  mouth  that  he  shut.  Well,  you  may 
saj-  there  was  some  evidence  abojit  Millard  Moore.  His  Honor  testified  to 
3'ou  that  under  the  laws  of  North  Carolina  it  is  not  admissible.  It  is  a  hard 
law,  our  dear  old  mother  has  a  hard  criminal  law.  In  West  Virginia  it  is 
different,  in  Georgia  it  is  different,  I  think  in  most  of  the  States  the  law  is 
differenc,  but  I  saj'  his  Honor  testified  that  in  North  Carolina  such  is  the 
law.  Now  listen,  gentlemen:  "Threats  of  other  persons  against  the  de- 
ceased are  onlj'  hearsaj',  and  could  not  be  received  as  evidence  in  this  case." 
State  vs.  Duncan,  6th  Iredell,  page  236.  Even  threats  can  not  be  proved, 
because  it  is  hearsay  evidence.  Now,  let  us  go  a  little  further.  "The  dec- 
larations of  the  deceased  that  he  feared  A.  B.,  not  the  defendant,  would  kill 
him,   is  not  competent  evidence."     Second  Jones,  page   143.     Let  us  go  a 


122  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

little  further.  "It  is  not  competent  to  show  that  a  third  party  had  malice 
against  the  deceased,  a  motive  to  kill  him,  opportunity,  and  had  uttered 
threats."  State  vs.  Lambeth,  93d  North  Carolina,  6x8.  Therefore,  gentle- 
men, 30U  see  why  we  have  not;  the  State  of  North  Carolina  might  have 
been  generous,  she  might  have  opened  the  door,  but  she  said,  "no,  you 
can  no  do  it." 

Well,  now,  the  motive.  Give  me  5'our  ears,  gentlemen;  I  want  you  to 
tell  me  the  motive  in  this  case.  They  say  the  motive  is  this  insurance.  My 
friend  Neal,  I  think  it  was,  argued  that  the  motive  was  that  he  wanted 
that  land;  ni}'  friend  McLean  said  the  prisoner  already  owued  the  land;  he 
abused  him  for  being  the  owner  of  the  land,  and  he  abused  him  for  not  sell- 
ing them  out  under  a  mortgage.  It  cannot  be  that  the  land  was  the  motive, 
because  the  land  already  belonged  to  him,  and  notice  right  here  what  a  ter- 
rible condition  we  are  all  getting  in,  and  I  mean  what  I  sa3^  What  influence 
did  he  have  over  Lizzie  Conoley  ?  This  policy  was  got  out  in  favor  of  Lizzie 
Conole)^  Daniel  MeDougald  is  not  named  in  it  at  all.  What  did  Daniel  Me- 
Dougald do?  According  to  the  evidence  Roper  comes  to  Daniel  MeDougald, 
and  he  says,  "  I  wish  you  would  use  your  influence  in  getting  a, certain  man 
to  insure  with  me."  He  says  he  did  not  exactly  call  the  man's  name,  but  he 
made  him  to  understand  that  it  was  Sim.  Conole}^;  "and  I  want  \^ou  to  use 
your  influence  hereafter  to  get  all  the  men  around  here  to  insure  in  my  Com- 
pany." No  evidence  of  any  influence  over  Conoley.  Now  here  is  the  postal 
card  he  wrote  :  "  You  can  send  the  policy,  I  will  remit  to  you;  Mr.  Conoley 
arranged  it  with  me  to  see  you,  so  you  can  send  or  bring  it  when  you  get  it 
approved."  Now,  is  that  anything?  Here  is  the  man  who  pays  the  policy 
for  his  uncle,  who  has  given  the  pavment  to  him;  why  in  this  insurance 
there  was  no  motive  sufficient  for  him  to  kill  his  uncle?  If  it  is,  now  sup- 
pose your  uncle  comes  to  one  of  you  and  says,  "I  want  to  insure  my  life." 
You  would  say,  "very  well,  uncle;  I  will  pay  the  policy. "  "I  want  to  insure 
it  in  favor  of  my  sister."  "I  will  pay  the  policy  and  you  can  secure  me." 
He  does  secure  you' and  you  have  paid  that  premium,  and  afterwards  your 
uncle  is  killed,  is  that  any  rea.son  on  earth  that  you  had  any  interest  in  this 
policy  ?  Where  do  you  get  the  interest  ?  Where  do  you  get  the  shade  of  an 
interest,  such  a  motive  as  would  cause  a  man  to  take  his  life?  If  they  get 
this  man  hung,  they  will  have  to  indict  Lizzie  Conoley.  Why?  Simply 
because,  if  he  killed  him,  that  would  not  prevent  their  paying  it,  but  they 
would  have  to  kill  Lizzie  Conoly.  What  do  they  show  that  letter  for — that 
they  can  be  so  easily  fooled;  what  was  it  brought  here  for,  except  that  he  was 
to  fool  Lizzie  Cpnoley  in  some  way  about  this  insurance  ?  I  say  it,  as  a  matter 
of  law,  that  unless  they  could  prove  that  Lizzie  Conoley  was  in  some  way 
connected  with  it,  they  could  not  prevent  paying  that  policy.  That  is  the 
whole  motive;  there  is  the  motive  in  this  case;  it  is  the  motive  of  the  Insurance 
Company  to  prevent  paying  that  ;^5,ooo.  And,  gentlemen,  they  would  not 
only  hang  Daniel  MeDougald,  but  they  would  hang  his  Honor  and  the  jury, 
and  all  the  counsel  for  the  defence,  and  if  they  did  'not  hang  the  counsel  for 
the  pro.secution  so  as  to  take  their  lives,  they  would  hang  them  so  as  to  make 
them  feel  very  uncomfortable,  in  order  to  prevent  paying  this  |5,ooo,  and 
that  is  the  whole  object  of  this  Insurance  Company  here  to-day. 

Gentlemen,  did  he  have  any  reason  to  do  this?  Wh3%  he  was  in  good 
circumstances;  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  world,  except  one  man,  that  Con- 
oley was  in  such  poor  circumstances  that  he  could  not  secure  this  money. 
MeDougald  was  in  good  circumstances,  there  was  no  trouble  in  the  world 
about  that. 

Then,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  the  shoes.  What  about  the  shoes  ?  There 
is  nothing  about  that  except  that  it  was  an  8  .shoe,  and  the  prisoner 
said,  "why,  I  think  that  shoe  will  about  fit  me."  Would  he  have  done  that 
if  he  was  guilty?  It  is  said  that  he  rubbed  out  the  tracks.  On  cross-exam- 
ination, the  witness  merely  said  that  he  walked  over  one  of  the  tracks;  there 
were  hundreds  of  tracks  there;  would  walking  over  one  track  rub  out  the 
whole  thing? 

Here,  then  is  friend  McRae.  I  have  not  very  much  to  say  against 
friend  McRae;  I  did  hear  that  McRae,  after  he  had  taken  out  this  warrant 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  123 

against  the  prisoner,  after  he  was  sent  there  as  an  under  bailiff  b\'  the 
State  of  North  Carolina — I  say  that  he  ought  not  to  talk  to  the  prisoner  about 
this  case,  knowing  that  he  was  going  to  be  a  witness,  and  I  think  if  he  did 
it  he  ought  not  to  have  done  it.  The  rule  now  is  that  the  officer  shall  say 
nothing  to  the  prisoner.  McRae  spoke  to  hini,  sympathized  with  him,  and 
told  him  that  if  he  could  clear  this  thing  up  it  would  be  all  right  with  him; 
if  he  could  show  himself  up  on  the  night  of  the  murder  it  would  be  all  right. 
He  said,  "that  might  be  right  hard  to  do;"  and  that  is  all  the  prisoner 
replied.  Then  30U  come  to  the  candy.  I  will  not  stop  on  that.-  It  is  shown, 
the  prosecution  say,  that  he  took  him  off  to  himself  and  dosed  him.  The 
evidence  of  Wilkes  is  that  he  did  not  eat  the  cand\'  till  he  got  to  Wilkes' 
house;  he  pulled  it  out  of  his  pocket  and  ate  some  of  it,  Wilkes  ate  two  of 
the  drops  and  his  children  ate  some  and  it  did  not  hurt  them.  The  evidence 
is  that  Conoley  was  taken  sick;  if  Dr.  Prince  is  to  be  believed,  and  everj-body 
gives  him  a  high  character,  not  only  as  a  man,  but  as  a  physician,  a  man 
learned  in  his  work — that  if  he  took  strychnine  no  emetic  would  save 
him  after  fifteen  minutes.  He  did  take  an  emetic  and  the  emetic  cured; 
therefore,  in  all  deference  to  Dr.  Prince,  I  bow  to  his  superior  learning  and 
say  that  it  could  not  have  been  strNchnine  that  he  was  affected  with,  and  as 
has  been  said  to  vou,  so  far  as  the  candy  is  concerned,  it  certainly  could  not 
have  affected  his  standing,  because  after  that  candy  was  given  we  have  proven 
that  no  man  bore  a  bitter  character  than  Daniel  McDougald  in  the  town  of 
Laurinburg.  What  did  he  do?  Some  little  bov  sa3's  that  he  saw  him  fumbling 
aiound  there,  that  he  did  not  notice  very  much;  that  he  was  sweeping  out 
the  .store.  As  proven  afterwards,  the  prisoner  said,  "you  need  not  bother, 
I  will  go  and  get  Llie  cand\-,"  and  he  goes  and  says,  "  well,  I  will  take  some 
of  those  there  out  of  the  show-case."  Then  he  comes  in  and  asks  whether 
Dr.  Everington  or  Dr.  Prince  are  in.  He  says  he  is  not  in  a  hurry;  after  he 
came  in,  he  says  to  Dr.  Prince:  "I  heard  that  that  candy  that  I  gave  Sim. 
Cono'.ey  had  something  the  matter  with  it,  I  want  you  to  look  at  it."  He 
could  not  have  done  better  than  that.  The  doctors  looked  at  it,  and  they 
say  that  they  found  some  strychnine  in  the  candy,  there  was  some  there; 
but  I  sa\',  if  you  believe  Dr.  Prince,  strychnine  was  not  the  cause  of  the 
man's  sickness;  I  say  if  you  believe  what  Wilkes  said,  that  Conoley  had  the 
candy  in  his  pocket,  and  that  he  ate  some,  and  one  of  Wilkes'  children  ate 
some,  and  they  were  not  injured  in  the  least,  then  was  the  candy  poisoned  ? 
I  think  not;  cannot  be.  Certainly  you  must  have  at  least  a  reasonable 
doubt  about  the  poisoning  of  the  candy. 

Well,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  any  u.se  to  refer  to  the  duster. 
What  was  the  color  of  it?  Phillips  said  it  was  mud-color,  Lockamy  said  the 
duster  was  light,  Charlotte  Dumas  said  it  was  light,  ]\IcPhail  said  dove-col- 
ored. They  make  a  great  deal  of  fuss  about  the  whisker.^.  Robbins  tells 
you  expressly  that  he  got  the  whiskers;  they  charge  that  at  the  concert  that 
lie  had  whiskers  across  his  face,  but  m^'  brother  that  has  just  addressed  you 
saj-s  he  don't  rely  upon  the  concert  at  all. 

[Here  Col.  French  requested  an  adjournment  of  Court,  which  was 
granted  for  the  day.  The  argument  was  resumed  on  the  next  da}',  Novem- 
ber 28th.] 

May  it  plea.se  your  Honor  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury: — I  hope  that  you 
return  to  your  labors  this  morning  refreshed  b}-  the  slumbers  of  the  night; 
and  I  am  glad  to  say  to  3'ou  that  in  looking  over  my  notes,  just  before  I  re- 
tired last  night,  I  do  not  think  that  I  shall  have  to  trouble  you  much  longer. 
But  I  ask  you  not  to  be  wear}';  I  ask  you  to  remember  the  heavv  responsi- 
bility that  hangs  over  me  in  this  case;  I  ask  30U  to  ask  yourself  the  ques- 
tion: do  you  think  the  prisoner  and  his  futher  and  his  mother  ihink  that  I 
have  tarried  with  you  too  long?  I  was  calling  your  attention  last  night, 
when  you  were  weary  and  I  was  wear}',  as  to  the  motive  in  this  cause.  I 
lay  down  and  I  la\'  it  down  without  lear  of  contradiction,  never  since  God 
made  Adam  has  a  man — if  a  .sane  man — killed  a  human  being  without  mo- 
tive. Sometimes  a  man  gets  frenzied,  and  as  the  law  shows  frenzy  or  anger 
takes  pos.session  of  rea.son,  and  when  we  strike  down  a  fellow-being,  the  law 
is  so  merciful  that  she  says  when  that  is  done,  it  is  not  murder;  that  the 


124  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

man  for  the  time  is  insane;  that  he  is  frenzied  and  it  is  but  manslaughter. 
I  say  the  kindness  of  the  law  says  that,  and  I  ask  those  gentlemen,  when 
they  address  the  jury,  skilled  lawyers  as  thej-  are,  to  show  me  the  motive  in 
this  case.  Has  the  evidence  that  they  have  put  upon  the  stand  carried  con- 
viction to  your  mind,  such  conviction  as  convinces  3'ou  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  to  a  moral  certaint}-,  that  that  motive  exists?  They  cannot  do  it. 
Well,  now,  let  me  refer  3-ou  for  a  moment  as  to  that  question  of  motive: 
"The  particular  interest  the  person  has  in  the  perpetration  of  an  act,  by 
reason  of  advantages  accruing  to  him  from  the  crime,  as  where  the  accused 
was  the  heir  at  law  of  the  deceased  and  in  impoverished  circumstances,  or  in 
which  he  previously  secured  a  will  in  which  he  was  a  legatee."  So,  in  lay- 
ing down  the  law  as  to  what  the  Solicitor  should  do  first  or  what  his  duty  is 
when  he  attempts  to  take  life,  they  sa^'  that  the  first  thing  is  a  motive. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  it  calmh^  and  quieth'.  What  motive  is  there  in  this 
case?  According  to  Roper  he  went  to  Laurinburg  and  asked  the  defendant 
to  tr\'  and  get  this  identical  insurance  upon  Sim.  Conoley ;  he  says  no  names 
•were  called,  but  he  was  referring  to  him  and  everybody  knew  what  insurance 
he  wanted;  that  he  asked  him  to  give  him  his  influence  generally  in  getting 
insurance  in  that  countr3',  and  that  afterwards  he  came  down  there,  Sim, 
Conole}'  was  examined  b}-  a  phj-sician,  signed  the  certificate,  made  his  appli- 
cation, and  I  suppose  .signed  it,  because  Roper's  name  is  a  witne.ss  to  it— 
this  ver^-  witness  himself  is  a  witness  to  the  application:  it  is  sent  for  and  the 
pri.soner  merel}'  writes  him  a  postal  card,  which  I  read  to  3'ou  la.st  night, 
stating  that  he  could  send  on  the  application,  that  his  uncle  had  made  ar- 
rangements with  him,  and  that  he  would  pa3-  the  premivira.  Now,  gentle- 
men note  that  as  far  as  it  goes.  If  his  uncle  was  killed  would  the  prisoner 
get  it  ?  For  whose  benefit  was  the  insurance?  Not  for  the  prisoner,  oh,  no; 
but  for  Lizzie  Conole3-;  suppose  Lizzie  Conole3'  was  killed,  was  the  prisoner 
her  heir?  Ah,  no,  she  had  a  son  who  would  have  inherited  it  from  her,  she 
had  brothers  and  sisters,  she  had  a  mother;  all  these  would  have  taken  it 
before  the  prisoner  could  have  gotten  an3'.  Was  the  prisoner  pressed  for 
mone3-  ?  Did  he  have  a  large  famil3'  of  children  cr3'ing  for  bread,  a  wife 
upon  a  bed  of  sickness  without  the  necessaries  of  life?  Ah,  no;  a  3'oung 
man  in  good  circumstances,  woith  four  or  five  thousand  dollars.  His  Honor 
remarked  from  the  Bench  when  the3'  offered  it,  "I  cannot  see  an3'  connection 
with  the  prisoner."  I  sa3',  and  I  sa3'  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  the 
Insurance  Conipan3'  must  have  some  motive  and  that  the  onU' motive  that  they 
can  have  is  to  prevent  pa3nng  that  §5,000,  and  in  order  to  do  that  the3'  must 
connect  Lizzie  Conole3-  with  the  crime;  if  the^'  convict  Daniel  MeDougald, 
the  first  thing  3'ou  will  hear  is  that  the3^  are  attempting  to  find  an  indict- 
ment against  Lizzie  Conole3',  because  the3^  cannot  carry  out  their  purpose 
without  it;  the3-  have  searched  and  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  carr3' out 
that  purpose  unless  the3'  go  further;  therefore,  I  can  see  no  wa^*  on  eaith  in 
which  thej'  can  show  you  the  motive  that  induced  the  prisoner  to  kill  Simeon 
Conole3'.  and  I  am  not  afraid  that  3-ou  men  will  take  the  prisoner's  life  until 
the  State  of  North  Carolina  shows  3'ou  some  motive  that  he  had  for  taking  it. 

On  3-esterda3-  there  were  some  references  to  circumstantial  evidence  that 
I  did  not  give  \-ou.  I  refer  to  Wharton,  Vol.  ist,  page  740,  742.  743.  Now,  I 
ask  3-ou  to  listen  to  what  the  law  sa3-s  concerning  circumstantial  evidence. 
[Reads  extract.]  In  direct  evidence  3-0:1  have  but  one  fact  to  find,  has  the 
man  lied  that  is  testifNing  that  he  saw  Sim.  Conolej-  killed  b3-  Daniel  Me- 
Dougald? If  he  has  not,  then  that  is  the  end  of  ni3-  inquiry,  I  can  find  a 
verdict  of  guilt3-.  But  how  is  it  in  circumstantial  evidence?  You  have  not 
onh-  to  find  here,  has  the  man  told  the  truth  about  that  particular  fact,  but 
to  draw  just  conclusions  from  it.  Do  I  believe  that  the  witness  swore  right, 
for  instance,  that  he  was  disguised  in  a  duster  at  the  concert?  I  will  come 
to  that  afterwards.  If  3-ou  could  believe  that,  3'ou  sa3',  "well  I  do  believe 
th  it,  but  what  has  that  got  to  do  with  it,  how  much  weight  ought  1  to  put 
in  that  to  convince  me  that  the  prisoner  is  guiltv  ?"  Positive  evidence  is 
best  for  two  rea.sons,  3'OU  have  not  got  to  find  but  one  thing  in  circumstan- 
tial evidence,  3'ou  have  got  to  find  the  fact  and  3-ou  have  got  to  consider  it; 
you  have  got  to  show  how  much  weight  it  ought  to  have  in  the  chain.     Yet 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  125 

we  hear  from  the  other  side,  wh5'  do  not  you  prove  him  innocent?  My  gcood 
friend  there  wanted  you  to  know  that  we  would  not  attempt  to  prove  him 
innocent,  but  that  we  would  befog  your  minds.  I  know  you  won't 
attempt  to  prove  him  innocent.  Now,  as  I  tell  you,  I  want  to  be  perfectly 
candid  with  you.  There  was  something  about  these  pants.  They  saj-  they 
were  pepper-and-salt  pants  found  there  at  the  river.  Robbins  did  swear  that 
he  thought  the  prisoner  had  pepper-and-salt  pants  at  one  time;  Phillips, 
who  was  intimate  with  him,  who  knew  him  well,  saj^s  he  never  had  any  that 
he  knew  of;  that  he  vvore  blue  flannel  pants.  Currie,  who  saj'S  he  onl}'  saw 
him  about  once  in  every  twelve  months,  undertakes  to  swear  that  at  one  time 
he  had  pepper-and-salt  pants;  but  the}'  have  never  told  you  one  word  about 
it.  l\Iv  honorable  friend  that  opened  this  prosecution  did  not  tell  you  that 
Sallie  Wilkes  swore  they  were  dark  pants  before  the  examination  at  Mill 
V  Prong;  she  swore  the  pants  were  exactly  the  same  color  that  this  old  lady 
swore  they  were,  but  not  one  word  comes  from  them  as  to  that.  Therefore, 
if  that  be  correct,  if  the  pants  were  dark  pants,  they  have  overturned  the 
pants  theory  about  those  found  at  the  river. 

As  far  as  I  remember,  the  evidence  on  both  sides  had  closed;  the  evi- 
dence of  the  defense,  so  far  as  they  were  repelling  the  assaults  of  the  enemy 
— then  what?  Then  this  old  lady  comes  upon  the  stand  and  vSwears  to  3'ou 
positively  in  substance  that  she  was  there;  that  through  that  door  she  saw  the 
party  there;  that  his  form  was  not  like  the  prisoner;  that  he  was  a  slim,  long 
legged,  tall, man,  exactly  the  description  that  Sallie  Wilkes  gives  us— Sallie 
Wilkes  and  she  tally  exactly.  Sallie  Wilkes  sa3'S  he  was  as  tall  and  slim 
as  Sim.  Conoley  at  least,  and  the  old  lady  tells  3-ou  she  saw  him;  that  the 
moon  was  shining  as  bright  as  day;  that  she  saw  him  as  he  went  there;  that 
some  wind  passed  by  and  took  up  whatever  was  around  him  and  put  it  under 
his  arm,  and  she  saw  to  his  waist,  and  she  says,  before  you  and  before  her 
God,  that  it  was  not  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  One  reason  she  says  that  she 
knew  it  was  not,  was  because  he  was  taller  than  Simeon  Conoley;  saw  them 
walking  side  by  side,  and  Simeon  Conoley  was  taller  than  the  prisoner. 
They  gave  up  the  plot,  did  they  not?  They  failed  signally  in  their  effort 
that  was  to  convict  the  old  woman  of  perjury  and  take  the  prisoner's  life. 
Was  not  that  the  object  of  it?  Wliat  else  was  it?  Could  there  be  any 
other?  Their  own  witness  swore  that  it  was  thirty  steps  beyond  the  corner 
ot  the  house,  and  3'et  he  says,  "I  don't  know  who  got  it  up,  I  don't  pretend 
to  say  who  got  it  up." 

So  gentlemen.  I  saj^  that  they  were  attempting  to  convict  of  perjury 
this  old  lad}',  eightN'-six  years  old,  but  whose  mind  is  as  clear  as  the  noon- 
6ay  sum — trying  to  convict  her  of  perjury,  who  is  on  the  very  verge  of  the 
grave  and  who  must  soon  appear  before  that  All-Seeing  Eye  which  pervades 
the  innermost  recesses  of  the  human  heart,  and  will  reAvard  us  according  to 
our  merits — the  great  I  AM,  who  will  punish  perjury.  Does  not  she  know 
but  that  a  few  short  days  and  she  must  appear  before  her  God  ?  Does  not 
she  know  that  if  she  comes  there  covered  with  perjury  that  He  will  pro- 
nounce the  awful  sentetice  on  her,  "Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed?"  Do  you 
believe  it?  Can  \-ou  think  it?  That  she  would  come  here  and  deliberately 
commit  perjur\',  perjury  and  perjury  for  whom  ?  According  to  the  gentle- 
men, the  very  nmn  that  had  stained  his  hands  with  the  blood  of  her  son. 
Oh  how  unnatural — smile  if  you  can.  I  see  nothing  to  smile  at.  vSee  the 
mother  weeping  and  the  counsel  smiling!  Gentlemen,  they  have  put  upon 
the  stand  two  witnesses  that  said  the  old  lady  told  them  that  she  knew 
nothing  about  it;  that  was  McLauchlin  and  McNair;  they  went  on  the  stand 
and  testified  to  a  weak  attempt  of  Dr.  Lewis,  that  he  went  there  and  said  he 
wanted  to  hear  from  all  that  knew  anything  about  it,  and  the  old  lady  did 
not  testify;  I  say  they  put  them  upon  the  stand  to  damn  lier  and  take  the  life 
of  the  prisoner;  but  lU}'  honored  friend  was  praying  here,  blessing  her  with 
his  mouth  and  stabbing  her  with  his  hand. 

Cole  comes  on  the  stand  and  says  this:  "  I  was  there  on  that  night;  I 
did  go,  and  I  went  to  that  store  and  I  bought  crackers,  and  there  was  an- 
other man  with  me  "  Could  not  that  other  man  have  left  the  clothes?  But 
throw  the  clothes  to  the  wind,  because  there  is  no  evidence,  not  a  shadow  to 


126  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

connect  them  with  the  prisoner,  unless  he  be  a  madman.  I  have  reviewed 
the  situation  of  the  clothes,  where  they  were  found,  there  by  the  river,  abso- 
lutely before  j^ou,  in  plain  view  of  one  of  the  most  public  roads  in  the  county 
of  Robeson,  left  there:  and  as  I  told  you  before,  but  I  will  repeat  it,  so  far 
as  this  man  is  concerned  where  he  waghed  my  friend  McLean  thinks  has  no 
connection  with  it:  I  think  it  was  honoiable  in  him  to  give  it  up,  a  witness 
covered  with  perjury  and  corruption  as  he  was,  could  not  handle  him  be- 
fore this  Court;  but  Mr.  Neal  swung  to  it  and  he  tried  to  make  you  believe 
that  what  he  told  was  the  truth;  "whom  the  gods  wish  to  destroy,  they  first 
make  mad,"  and  the}'  have  done  it  with  them.  Do  they  agree  at  all.-'  My 
friend  McLean  did  not  give  up  the  concert  matter,  did  he?  Oh,  no.  Friend 
Neal  came  along  and  said,  "that  has  got  nothing  to  do  with  the  case;  I  do 
not  care  anything  about  the  concert,  nothing  in  the  world,"  and  they  were 
at  least  one  or  two  da3'S  putting  witnesses  on  the  stand  to  prove  that  that 
man  wore  the  duster  at  the  concert,  and  was  carrying  out  the  same  disguise 
as  at  the  concert.  Gentlemen,  was  it  not  wrong  for  them  to  take  Up  one  or 
two  days  for  evidence  that  was  totally  immaterial?  "Oh,"  says  Neal,  "I 
care  nothing  about  the  concert."  I  reckon  not,  when  they  put  a  man  on  the 
stand  who  says,  '  'it  was  not  a  duster,  it  was  an  old  cutaway  coat;  I  turned  it 
and  put  it  upon  the  prisoner,  and  I  remember  very  distinctly  that  its  arms 
were  lined  with  white  stuff."  When  Phillips  comes  upon  the  stand  he  says 
"The  prisoner  did  not  wear  the  duster,  I  wore  it."  "Where  did  j^ou  get  it?" 
And  like  an  honest  man  he  says,  "I  got  it  from  a  negro  and  I  returned  it  to 
him."  Yet  the  State  of  North  Carolina  seeks  for  the  blood  of  the  prisoner 
and  examined  them  to  prove  that  they  did  not  know  the  prisoner  in  the 
duster,  did  not  know  that  it  was  McDougald;  I  reckon  not,  because  it  was 
not  McDougald,  but  Phillips;  how  in  the  name  of  Heavens  could  they  have 
known  it  was  McDougald  when  it  was  a  different  man?  "His  disguise  was 
so  perfect  they  did  not  know  him."  I  reckon  not,  for  it  was  not  the  man  at 
all.  The}'  have  been  so  badly  whipped  that  they  have  absolutely  to  quit 
the  field  and  give  it  up;  they  have  deserted  their  colors  on  that  point;  they 
must  desert  them  on  all  before  they  are  through. 

Now,  let  us  see,  gentlemen.  I  am  going  to  repeat  to  you  something 
which  I  say  is  the  law  from  these  books.  I  want  you  to  ask  5'ourselves  these 
questions.  When  each  one  of  these  allegations  made  out  by  the  State  to 
convict  the  prisoner  and  make  out  the  chain  by  which  they  expect  to  hang 
him,  when  each  one  of  these  allegations  come  up  before  you  in  the  jury  room 
to  decide,  I  want  you  fairly  to  ask  yourselves  these  questions:  "Am  I  as 
fully  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  to  a  moral  certainty,  that  this  alle- 
gation is  true,  as  I  am  of  the  death  of  Simeon  Conoley?"  "Am  I  as  fully 
satisfied  of  the  truth  of  this  allegation  as  I  would  require  to  be  if  the  whole 
case  turned  upon  that  fact?  If  it  was  my  sworn  duty  to  say  that  the  pris- 
oner was  guilty  of  murder  upon  my  finding  that  this  allegation  was  the 
truth,  and  not  guilty  upon  my  finding  it  was  not  true,  would  my  verdict  be 
guilty  or  not  guilty?"  The  law  says  that  each  one  of  those  facts  you  must 
bring  up  and  put  them  to  that  test,  which  some  of  the  counsel  seem  to  have 
forgotten  entirely  was  their  duty  in  this  case;  I  feel  sorry  for  them,  they 
could  not  do  it,  but  they  ought  to  have  gotten  up  and  said  they  could  not 
do  it.  They  seem  to  think  it  was  entirely  our  dut}'  to  prove  the  prisoner 
innocent;  it  was  a  duty,  but  I  believe  we  have  done  it.  As  I  shall  show  you 
afterwards,  the  prisoner  commanded  his  troops,  go  out  and  scatter  the 
enemy;  they  have  assaulted  me  first,  I  have  a  right  to  stand,  to  call  counsel, 
and  say  not  a  word,  but  I  want  to  clear  this  thing  up,  go  out  and  assault  the 
enemy.  We  went  out,  and  with  Mrs.  Effie  Conoly,  the  old  lady,  we  as- 
saulted the  enemy.  What  more?  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  prove  to  you 
in  the  manner  before  stated  every  single  allegation  upon  which  they  rely 
for  ttie  conviction  of  the  prisoner,  and  if  they  have  failed  to  so  prove  to  you 
each  allegation  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  Recollect  it  is  one 
continuous  chain  that  they  rely  on  to  convict  the  prisoner.  It  is  the  duty  of 
the  State  to  prove  every  one  of  these  allegations  that  they  rely  on.  If  they 
did  not  rely  on  each  one  of  them  why  do  they  take  up  the  time  of  the  Court 
in  this  cause  to  examine  witnesses  on  them  ?     Now  what  ?    After  you  find 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  127 

all  these  allegations  are  true,  do  they  prove  to  my  mind  to  a  moral  certainty, 
bej'ond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  prisoner  committed  the  deed  ?  Then  see 
how  much  weight  each  one  of  these  allegations  that  prove  to  be  true  ought 
to  have  in  the  chain  ?  Does  this  evidence  exclude  from  mj-  mind  every 
reasonable  h^'polhesis  of  his  innocence,  everj'  reasonable  supposition  that 
any  other  person  committed  the  deed;  and  if  jou  should  so  find,  it  is  j-our 
sworn  dut}'  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  I  have  shown  you,  last  night,  that,  in 
North  Carolina,  if  A.  B.  said  before  this  trial  "I  killed  Simeon  Conoly,"  or 
Simeon  Conoly  had  said  he  was  afraid  A.  B.  would  kill  him,  that 
if  you  prove  A.  B.  had  opportunity  and  motive,  and  that  he  absolutely  said 
he  did  the  killing,  utider  the  laws  of  North  Carobna,  if  objected  bj'  the  State 
and  they  did  object,  we  could  not  prove  it.  I  say  it  is  a  bloodN^  law;  I  say 
that  our  grand  old  State  has  not  exactly  kept  up  with  the  advancement;  she 
has  not  incorporated  in  her  laws  that  mercy  that  is  incorporated  in  some  of 
the  other  States,  in  Western  \'irginia,  in  Georgia,  and  I  doubt  not  in  most 
of  the  States;  but  North  Carolina  moves  slowh-;  she  is  good,  she  is  honest, 
she  is  pure,  but  she  moves  slowh"  in  all  things.  She  has  got  upon  her  the 
old  bloody  criminal  law,  in  a  great  measure,  of  the  past;  she  has  got  some  of 
the  law,  in  some  respects,  in  the  pages  of  Blackstone,  where  you  remember 
there  are  a  great  many  criminal  felonies;  one  was  to  cut  a  cherry  tree  upon 
the  land  of  a  Lord,  and  you  forfeit  30ur  life;  I  say  she  has  still  in  her  much 
of  the  impress  of  tliat  old  law. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jur}-,  I  tell  30U,  before  coming  to  that  conclusion,  that 
the  prisoner  is  guilty,  you  have  a  right  to  ask  ^'ourself  this  question,  "does 
the  evidence  prove  to  nu'  mind  as  fulh\  clearly  and  satisfactorily  that  Daniel 
McDougald  killed  Simeon  Conoly  as  if  one  witness  of  good  character  had 
sworn  that  he  had  seen  him  do  it.?"  I  say  that  you  have  a  right  to  put  that 
question  to  your  mind.  (Reads  from  State,vs.  Swink,  Devereux  and  Battle, 
Vol.  2,  page  9,  particularly  on  page  17.)  I  will  admit  that  in  the  74th  North 
Carolina  they  have  reviewed  Swink;  I  admit  it,  my  friend,  I  am  not  going 
to  do  like  you  did,  state  all  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution  and  none  for  the 
defense. 

Let  us  for  a  few  moments  take  in  review  all  their  allegations;  let  us  put 
the  test  to  them,  \our  guiding  star,  your  needle  from  which  you  should  not 
vary,  the  needle  that  is  to  carrj-  you  safeh'  through  the  stormy  waters  of 
this  case.  What  is  the  first  allegation .'  That  he  was  disguised  in  these 
concerts  as  a  negro,  and  had  on  a  duster.  Do  5'ou  fulh-  believe  to  a  moral 
certainty  that  that  is  true  ?  You  cannot  do  it,  because  it  has  been  proven 
exactly  the  opposite.  Well,  let  us  go  a  little  further;  the  onh*  thine  that 
they  get,  the  nearest  to  proof,  was  that  the  prisoner  was  at  iNLixton  on  the 
morning  of  the  21st;  are  30U  convinced  to  a  moral  certainty'  that  that  is  so? 
are  you  not  convinced  that  it  is  not  so  b^'  their  own  witne.sees  ?  M\'  friend 
never  told  \ou  a  word  about  it;  you  never  heard  about  Phillips,  you  never 
heard  one  word  from  his  mouth  about  De\'ane;  oh,  no;  and  unless  they  prove 
that  their  witness,  T.  K.  Phillips,  of  this  town,  committed  deliberate  perjurv, 
the  prisoner  was  not  there  on  the  21st.  Phillips  came  on  the  stand  and 
swore  that  he  saw  him  there,  at  the  same  time  says  he  saw  him  at  Red 
Springs;  he  goes  on  the  stand  afterwards  and  sa^'s,  "I  did  not  swear  to  it." 
But  we  prove  b\-  documentar\-  evidence  and  the  records  of  the  railroad — 
they  tell  n'ou  that  Phillips  went  out  on  no  special  on  the  21st,  but  the\-  tell 
you  that  he  went  out  on  the  24th  and  not  the  21st;  gentlemen,  thej-  must 
convict  their  witness  of  perjury,  and  heaven  knows  they  have  done  enough. 
My  friend  Archie  took  one,  and  I  suppose  my  friend  Rowland  will  take  the 
next.  Did  he  not  leave  out  that  man  Gillespie,  did  he  not  say  leave  him 
out  of  the  case,  that  he  had  been  sworn  to  be  of  bad  character.  But,  gentle- 
men, I  do  not  want  to  drop  the  poor  fellow;  some  man  swore  that  his  charac- 
ter was  good.  I  say  then  you  have  it  absolutelj*  certain,  and  you  have  De- 
Vane.  W^as  it  right,  was  it  fair  in  my  friend  not  to  tell  \ou  that  DeVane 
said  expressly  that  he  walked  and  talked  with  the  man  on  the  train  and  that 
he  did  not  believe  it  was  the  prisoner.  Upon  that  fact,  suppose  you  put  the 
test:  Do  I  believe  he  got  on  the  train  as  fairly  as  I  believe  in  the  death  of 
Sim.  Conoley  ?     Talk  about  doubts;  they  are  covered  with  doubts,  they  have 


128  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

left  everything  in  doubt.  When  you  come  in  and  hold  up  the  scales  of  jus- 
tice the}^  stand  trembling  and  at  last  come  to  an  even  balance;  5'ou  must 
weigh,  you  must  judge,  3-ou  must  prove,  if  the  scales  hang  even  find  for  the 
defendant. 

After  he  gets  on  the  train  at  Maxton,  is  there  a  human  being  pretends 
to  swear  that  he  is  the  prisoner  when  he  gets  on  that  train  at  7  or  8  o'clock 
on  2ist,  or  do  they  pretend  to  locate  him  for  the  twentj'-four  hours  till  Wed- 
nesday at  the  same  time,  when  they  saj-  they  locate  him  at  Maxton  ?  Is  not 
that  so?  Yet  the  gentleman  that  argues  this  case  tells  you  that  if  he  had 
the  least  doubt  about  the  guilt  of  this  prisoner  he  would  quit  the  case;  has 
not  he  got  some  doubts  about  that?  Is  his  mind  so  impressed  against  the 
prisoner  that  even  that  don't  raise  doubts  in  him.  Suppose  that  was  a  civil 
ca.se  and  thej-  left  out  all  that,  and  how  long  would  it  take  you  to  decide  for 
him?  Oh,  but  Charlotte  Dumas  saw  him,  or  at  least  she  saw  a  man  that 
had  on  a  duster,  and  Cottingham  sa^'s  that  ever3'body  was  wearing  dusters; 
and  Charlotte  saw  him  and  said  he  had  a  light  duster  and  had  something 
strapped  across  his  back,  and  he  was  a  white  man  walking  down  the  rail- 
road. And  McPhail,  a  good  man,  saw  a  man  there  and  he  had  on  a  dove 
colored  duster.  Presto  change !  I  have  not  referred  much  to  my  friend 
Neal,  because  I  have  not  time,  and  I  did  not  refer  to  one-third  of  my  notes  of 
my  friend  Archie  for  I  did  not  have  the  time;  but  Neal  used  one  expression, 
gentlemen,  that  I  noticed;  Neal  said  he  was  going  to  wash  his  hands  of  this 
cause;  but,  in  the  name  of  heaven,  you  cannot  wash  your  hands  of  this 
cause  and,  like  Pontius  Pilate,  saj^  "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man,"  yet  the 
multitude  cry  all  the  more,  "crucify  him!  crucify  him!"  and  Pontius 
Pilate,  naturally  a  good  man  but  wanting  the  back  bone  that  a  great  many 
men  want,  could  not  stand  against  the  multitude,  and  says,  "  I  will  wash  my 
hands  and  give  the  Son  of  Man  to  the  multitude  to  be  crucified."  Neal 
is  washing  his  hands,  you  cannot  wash  your  hands,  you  not  only  cannot 
wash  your  hands,  but,  as  good,  honest,  upright  men,  you  do  not  want  to 
wash  3'our  hands,  you  have  got  nothing  to  wash  for.  You  are  about  to  do 
your  duty,  and  you  are  not  going  to  imitate  Pontius  Pilate;  no,  even  if  the 
multitude  were  howling,  3'ou  would  bring  out  the  best  verdict  in  this  case 
and  it  would  be  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  not  guilty.  You  have  got  back- 
bone. 

Was  there  any  talk  about  his  being  a  blacked  white  man  in  disguise 
until  all  this  feeling  was  gotten  up?  Not  a  word  at  Mill  Prong  examina- 
tion; I  am  informed  by  authority  that  they  did  not  speak  anything  about  a 
white  man  in  disguise.  Everyone  swore  that  it  was  a  negro.  The  coroner's 
verdict  put  the  stigma  upon  poor  Johnson,  that  he  was  guilty;  but  it  ac- 
cused him  falsely,  if  these  witnesses  are  now  to  be  believed,  and  they  state 
they  are.  They  knew  it,  they  knew  that  they  had  been  sworn  to  tell  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  they  kept  out  the 
very  evidence  that  w^as  to  release  Johnson.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  will 
say  no  more  than  this:  if  they  kept  it  back  they  knew  it  was  true,  they  were 
on  a  trial  of  life  and  death,  they  are  now  on  a  trial  of  life  and  dfeath,  what 
confidence  can  be  put  in  their  testimony  ? 

Then,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  Gillespie.  I  do  not  know  what  to  say 
about  Gillespie;  I  think  friend  Archie  is  about  as  good  authority  as  fiiend 
Neal,  and  friend  Archie  says  he  won't  di.scuss  it;  when  the  lawyers  disagree 
I  think  that  the  prisoner  ought  to  be  released,  and  those  lawyers  have  dis- 
agreed square  and  fair.  My  friend  Archie  never  told  you  that  the  man 
washed  outside  the  house;  it  was  then  day  and  he  washed  outside;  a  great 
many  strangers  pas.sed  there,  and  the  reason,  as  Brother  Neal  says,  that  he 
did  not  wash  in  the  swamps  was  that  he  was  afraid  somebody  would  see  him. 
But  inbroad  daylight  he  goes,  and  outside  of  a  house  in  one  of  the  most  pub- 
lic roads  in  the  county  of  Robeson,  he  washes  his  face.  Heaven,  what  reas- 
oning !  Well  now,  my  friends,  there  is  a  good  honest  negro  who  comes  up; 
says  he  was  there  that  morning,  and  he  is  not  lying;  he  says  if  this  Yellow 
was  there  he  did  not  see  him,  if  the  prisoner  was  there  he  did  not  see  him; 
there  was  only  a  slight  partition  between  the  houses,  and  he  said  he  did  not 
see  the  prisoner,  and  more  than  that  he  fed  Gillespie's  hog.     I  will  see  what 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  129 

my  friend  Rowland  does;  they  are  to  follow  afterwards,  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  will  follow  friend  Archie  or  friend  Neal,  one  on  one  side  and 
one  on  the  other  takinir  different  roads.  The  law  says  thej^  must  prove 
everythin;^  that  is  essential.     Did  not  they  make  a  terrible  mistake? 

Do  not  tire,  g-entlemen,  we  will  go  on  a  little  further.  Then  there  is  the 
blacking  the  next  morning;  well,  the\-  failed  on  that  about  as  badh'  as  any- 
thing can  be;  the  salted  Herring  said  he  had  blacking  on  him;  that  it  was 
plainly  to  be  .seen,  that  anj-body  could  see  it;  that  was  his  language.  Did 
my  friend  Archie  rememl)er  that?  If  he  remembered  it,  was  it  right  to  keep 
it  out,  and  if  he  did  not  remember  that,  how  do  3'ou  know  how  much  he  has 
forgotten;  he  certainly  forgot  all  the  law  in  the  case  when  he  told  3'ou  the 
prisoner  had  to  prove  himself  innocent,  but  so  biased  was  he  that  he  forgot 
all  the  law  except  that  he  wanted  the  scalp  of  McDougald.  Tlien  they  bring 
their  Hebrew  here;  you  have  heard  of  a  mob  that  howled  around  Pontius 
Pilate,  well  they  bring  one  of  them  here  and  he  says  lie  saw  him  on  that 
dav.  and  he  had  a  little  dark  under  his  e3"e.  Herring  said  he  was  in  Mc- 
Dongald's  Sundav  School  class  and  that  McDougald  was  Superintendent; 
Mr.  Hargrove  and  Mr.  Aleck  McKinnon,  as  good  men  as  ever  lived,  say  that 
is  a  whole  cloth  lie;  McDougald  never  was  Superintendent,  and  never  had  a 
class,  and  thev  had  never  seen  that  fellow  there  but  once  in  his  life. 

McDougald  was  standing  011  the  platform,  Powers  was  down  here;  "  Mc- 
Doiigald  stooped  thus,  and  I  talked  to  him,  m^-  face  was  in  a  foot  of  him;  I 
looked  him  right  in  the  face  and  there  was  no  black."  Herring  says  it  was 
plainly  to  be  seen,  anybody  could  see  it.  But  they  say  that  Powers  is  a 
dirty  sort  of  a  fellow,  and  that  he  runs  railroad  trains  and  is  used  to  ditt,  and 
a  fellow's  face  could  not  be  so  black  that  poor  Powers  should  notice  it.  I  do 
not  think  that  ever}'  man  that  runs  a  train  is  so  filthy  and  dirty  that  abso- 
lutelv  when  he  sees  a  man  he  can't  tell  whether  he  looks  decent  or  not. 

[Mr.  McLean  interrupts  to  say,  "  Do  3'ou  say  I  make  that  statement?  I 
said  nothing  of  that  sort."] 

I  take  it  back,  I  thought  it  was  Mr.  ]\IcLean.  It  was  Mr.  Neal.  Well, 
gentlemen,  if  I  do  not  get  into  the  right  mail,  I  get  into  the  right  pew  of  the 
church;  it  was  in  the  prosecution;  I  just  happened  to  hit  the  wrong  sinner, 
bvit  I  bit  the  sinner  in  the  church  and  in  the  pew;  I  l.eg  his  pardon,  if  he 
was  not  the  man.  Powers,  Sellers.  McGirt,  three  of  them,  swear  he  did  not 
have  any  black  on  his  face;  but  two  swear  he  did.  Haddocks  swears  he  did; 
McCormick  saw  him  next  day,  and  he  don't  prove  b}^  McCormick  that  he 
had  any  black  on  his  face.  Crowson  saw  him  next  day;  he  is  the  fellow 
that  said  the  prisoner  was  terribly  hungry,  ravenously  hungr3%  and  in  the 
name  of  heavens  what  did  he  ask  for?  Oranges.  Right  light  diet  for  a 
ravenously  hungry  man;  I  think  a  little  bacon  would  have  satisfied  a  very 
hungry  man  better.  Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  take  that  issue.  Suppose  that 
was  a  civil  issue  before  you;  all  the  doubts  are  on  their  side,  all  the  fog,  all 
the  confusion  they  have  left  with  j-ou.  Suppose  that  was  a  civil  case,  sup- 
po.se  it  turned  upon  that  fact,  would  it  take  3'ou  two  seconds  to  say  it  was 
false?  Not  only  has  the  plaintiff  failed  to  put  the  preponderance  of  evidence 
in  his  f'vor,  but  when  you  hold  up  the  scale  of  justice,  the  side  thatthe  plain- 
tiff was  in  would  come  up  like  a  feather,  and  the  side  the  defendant  was  in 
would  go  down,  the  weight  would  be  strong  on  his  side.  So  can  there  be 
anj'  doubt  upon  that  issue?     None  in  the  world. 

Well,  gentlemen,  that  is  about  the  whole  thing,  is  it  not?  What  else  is 
there?  The\'  say  he  fled,  and  I  do  not  pretend  to  question  the  exact  lan- 
guage. My  friend  said  he  fled  because  Conoley's  ghost  was  following  him 
all  the  daj's  of  his  life,  and  he  quoted  a  piece  from  "Festus;"  right  good 
thing,  they  say  it  was  written  by  a  madman  and  a  lawyer;  I  am  not  surprised 
at  my  friend  quoting  from  a  crazy  man.  Brother  Neal  spoke  so  much  about 
railroads,  if  he  had  been  a  conductor  for  forty  years  I  don't  think  he  could 
have  used  much  more  railroad  slang.  I  showed  you  how  about  the  29th  he 
went  to  Lanrinburg;  I  showed  you  how  he  got  the  clothes  about  the  26th;  I 
showed  you  how  about  the  30th  he  became  seized  with  fear,  when  he  found 
they  were  stolen,  because  he  thought  that  the  murderer  was  trying  to  hunt 
him  up  to  kill  him.     I  have  shown  you  how  he  went  along  that  road,  telling 


130  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeBougaU 

Purcell  and  others  that  he  was  frightened,  that  he  got  his  uncle's  son  to  go 
with  him.  I  have  shown  you  how  on  the  first  of  INIaj'  he  boarded  a  train  to 
see  a  lawyer,  but  he  had  begun  to  be  frightened,  and  Livingston  tells  him 
on  the  train,  as  1  told  you  before,  that  he  would  be  one  of  fiive  men  to  hang 
the  man  that  murdered  Simeon  Conoley.  We  have  shown  you  that  Millard 
Moore  had  threatened  to  kill  him  before;  that  his  threats  were  known  before 
he  left;  we  have  shown  Millard  Moore  had  threatened  his  uncle,  Sim.  Cono- 
ley,  if  he  put  his  foot  upon  a  piece  of  land  that  Sim.  said  Millard  Moore  had 
a  fraudulent  deed  for;  we  have  shown  you  the  threats  in  the  county  before 
they  knew  he  had  left,  because  they  were  made  on  Saturday  and  nobody 
knew  he  had  left  till  Monday  evening.  Was  there  no  cause  to  alarm  the 
poor  prisoner,  when  the  citizens  of  Laurinburg  got  so  alarmed  that  they  went 
down  in  a  body  to  meet  him  at  the  train  in  order  to  guard  him  ?  It  aroused 
their  fears,  and  in  the  name  of  Heaven  were  they  more  interested  in  McDou- 
gald  than  McDougald  was  interested  in  himself? 

How  do  3-0U  know  he  did  not  go  to  Wilmington  ?  It  was  proven  by 
McBrj'de  that  he  went  to  Wilmington  a  short  time  after  that  and  came 
back  on  the  freight  train,  and  my  good  friend  did  not  tell  you  that  McBryde 
told  him  the  clothes  were  there,  and  he  went  right  back  and  got  them.  They 
have  not  given  us  this  whole  cause;  they  have  kept  from  us,  at  least  they 
have  not  told  us  the  evidence  for  the  defense.  I  say  they  might  not  have 
meant  any  wrong  bj'  it,  but  oh,  my  God  !  the  consequences  to  the  prisoner 
might  be  equally  as  fatal,  yet  he  is  pure  as  an  angel  from  heaven.  I  say 
you  cannot  tell,  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  tell  anything  about  whether  he 
went  to  Wilmington  or  not.  He  had  an  opportunity  to  go  to  Wilmington 
and  he  might  have  gone  He  told  Livingston  on  the  train  that  the  clothes 
would  be  at  the  hearing.  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  I  say  that  Living.ston  may 
be  mistaken;  when  he  went  and  told  the  Sheriif  about  it  he  told  a  somewhat 
difterent  tale;  he  says  that  he  told  him  they  would  be  at  the  trial,  and  they 
were  in  John  D.  Shaw,  Jr.'s  office.  But  when  he  went  to  tell  the  Sheriff 
about  it,  being  in  the  office  was  left  out.  They  have  been  hearing  all  about 
these  things  since  the  21st,  and  we  find  some  witnesses  must  be  wrong;  we 
find  that  Lyon  must  we  wrong  when  he  said  the  prisoner  told  him  it  must 
be  a  white  man  disguised.  Suppose  the  prisoner  is  shaking  with  fear  when 
he  heard  Livingston  talk  about  lynching;  don't  you  rernbember  Hargrove 
said  that  he  had  Kelly  up  there  for  trial,  and  the  crowd  was  going  to  mob 
Kelly,  and  he  said,  "gentlemen,  if  you  mob  Kelly  3'ou  will  be  guilt}'  of 
murder,"  but  it  was  all  he  could  do  to  save  poor  Kellj-'s  life,  and  Kelly  in  a 
few  moments  was  proved  innocent.  If  mobs  only  hang  guilty  men  and  inno- 
cent men  go  free,  mob  law.  instead  of  being  that  terrible  thing  that  we  have 
heard  of  and  fear,  that  terrible  thing  that  the  law  attempts  to  crush,  is  a 
power  for  good,  and  let  us  do  away  with  our  courts  and  exchange  law  for 
tnob  law. 

Is  there  anything  else?  Is  there  any  other  testimony  ?  We  have  gone 
over  the  shoes,  the  clothes,  traced  him  to  Maxton,  taken  up  the  theory  of 
the  State,  that  he  went  from  Maxton  to  Shandon  and  went  on  and  murdered 
the  man.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  anything  more  in  this  theory  for  me  to 
take  up  and  argue  to  you.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  it  seems  to  me  that  I  have  gone 
fairly  and  squarely  through  it.  As  I  said  before,  the  prisoner  finding  that 
the  assaults  of  the  State  upon  him  were  like  the  ripples  of  the  waves  of  the 
Mediterranean  on  a  summer  eve  against  the  rock  of  Gibralter,  he  himself 
attacked  the  enemy.  The  law  does  not  require  it  of  him;  the  defense 
assaulted  their  enem3%  and  by  this  testimony  of  Mrs.  Effie  Conoley  broke 
their  battalions,  captured  their  banners,  took  their  standards,  scattered  their 
troops  like  leaves  before  the  autumn  wind.  Yes,  not  only  has  Daniel  Mc- 
Dougald repelled  the  assaults  of  the  State,  but  he  now  holds  in  his  hands 
the  standards  taken  from  North  Carolina;  never  was  defeat  more  overwhelm- 
ing, never  was  victory  more  complete.  I  sa3',_not  only  has  the  State  failed  to 
prove  him  guily,  but  he  himself  has  pioved  fo  you  that  he  was  not  guilty. 
And  now,  gentlemen,  that  being  so,  give  back  to  that  mother  her  boy. 
Doubtless  time  and  again  during  the  progress  of  this  trial,  in  fancy's  glass, 
while  his  character  was  being  proved  to  be  so  pure,  she  remembered  the  time 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  131 

he  knelt  at  her  knee  and  she  had  taught  him  his  duty  to  his  God,  his  family 
and  his  fellows.  Further,  I  expect  she  thanks  her  God  that  she  so  per- 
formed her  duty  and  performed  it  so  well. 

Now,  I  ask  you,  shall  this  boy  of  her's  that  she  has  taught  from  his  in- 
fanc}',  to  walk  in  the  paths  prescribed  by  his  IMaker,  shall  this  child  of  good 
parents  save  this  corporation  from  paying  jf)5.ooo  that  they  honestlj'  owe  to 
a  daughter  of  North  Carolina.  Gentlemen,  I  see  it  in  your  countenances 
that  your  hearts  are  overflowing  with  desire  and  your  lips  are  impatient  for 
the  time  to  come  when  j'ou  can  turn  from  the  mother  this  sorrow,  when  you 
will  proclaim  in  a  voice  of  thunder  "  not  guilty,"  and  carry  to  her  burdened 
heart,  to  the  heart  of  his  father,  to  the  heart  of  kindred,  to  the  heart  of  his 
friends,  joy  and  sunshine;  yes,  when  you  will  proclaim  those  words  and 
break  the  chain  which  now  binds  him,  release  him  from  a  felon's  cell  with 
its  impure  air  and  let  him  again  pass  into  God's  glorious  sunshine,  and 
breathe  again  the  balmy  and  pure  air  from  heaven.  Yes,  gentlemen,  with 
full  confidence,  I  leave  the  prisoner's  life  in  j-our  hands,  fully  believing  that 
you  will  do  you  dut^'  in  this  cause. 


Hon.  Alfred  Rowland — for  the  prosecution. 

May  it  Please  Your  Honor  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury; 

Col.  French  on  3'esterday  afternoon  commenced  his 
speech  bj-  declaring  that  the  leader  of  the  defence  in 
this  case,  had  ordered  him  to  the  front  to  find  the  ene- 
VAy  and  to  report.  I  gather  from  the  argument  of  the 
counsel  that  some  of  you  have  been  soldiers;  if  so, 
you  know  that  it  is  the  light  skirmishers  who  are 
sent  to  the  front;  so  he  was  commanded  to  go,  taking 
with  him  his  banner  with  "victory"  written  upon  it; 
he  has  returned,  gentlemen  of  the  jury;  the  word 
"  victory  "  has  been  obliterated  from  the  banner,  and 
yet  you,  as  citizens  of  Cumberland  count3^  should  be 
profoundly  grateful  to  the  distinguished  counsel,  be- 
cause he  has  informed  you  of  one  fact,  which  30U, 
HON.  ALFRED  ROWLAND,  "ot  Only  as  North  Carolinians  but  as  citizens  of  Cum- 
of  Lumberton,  N.  c.  ■*  berland  count}',  never  heard  of  before.  He  takes  you, 
gentlemen,  in  this  mission  in  search  of  the  enemy, 
across  the  American  continent,  across  the  might}-  waste  of  waters  that  sepa- 
rates us  from  distant  lands,  and  he  tells  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3^  that 
he  discovered  that  5-our  most  distinguished  son,  Mr.  Dobbin,  while  Secretary 
of  the  Nav}-,  in  this  far  distant  land,  created  a  new  nation  in  the  twinklino^ 
of  an  es'e.  As  he  spoke  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  almost  listened  to 
hear  the  rustling  of  the  mighty  wings  of  the  glorious  Dobbin  coming  down 
from  a  better  world  to  thank  the  distinguished  counsel  for  informing  the 
people  of  Cumberland  of  what  he  had  done.  Dobbin  created  it,  French  dis- 
covered it. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jurN',  I  do  not  propose  to  follow  his  argument.  You 
know  that,  having  traveled  so  far  and  so  rapidl^^  he  must,  as  he  sa3-s.  be 
wearied;  and  while  his  mind,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  must  be  more  or  less 
aff"ected  by  the  incidents  of  the  journey,  I  gather  from  his  argument  that  he 
has  embodied  some  of  the  customs  and  manners  of  the  Japanese,  or  else  he 
w^ould  not  have  said  deliberatel3-  in  a  court  of  justice  that  he  thanked  Al- 
mighty God  that  his  associates  and  his  friends  were  not  witnes.ses  in  this 
cause:  it  may  be  a  Japane.se  custom,  certainl3-  it  is  not  a  Scotch  or  an  Ameri- 
can custom.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  call  your  attention  to  one  other  point 
in  his  argument  and  then  I  think  I  will  abandon  it :  he  eloquentl3'  speaks 


1S2  Tlie  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 

of  one  son  of  North  Carolina,  whose  decisions  have  been  quoted  in  West- 
minster, one  who  is  famed  not  onU-  in  America  but  in  Europe  as  a  distin- 
guished jurist;  he  calls  attention  to  an  elaborate  opinion  b3'  Mr.  RuflBn,  and 
he  tells  30U,  gentlemen,  that  he  disagrees  with  him. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3-,  the  counsel  who  first  addressed  3'ou,  in  elo- 
quent language,  pointed  the  delendant  out  to  you  as  a  child  of  the  Coven- 
ant, as  a  descendant  of  that  mighty  race,  who,  alone  ot  all  races  in  this 
earth ,  have  never  been  conquered  or  subdued ;  stei  n  and  rugged  as  their  native 
hills  of  Old  Caledonia,  they  have  never  bowed  the  knee  to  any  master,  but 
have  always  been  sturd\-  and  honest;  children  of  the  Covenant  indeed  they 
were,  andthe}-  preserve  their  religion,  the  right  to  worship  Almighty  God, 
and  the\-  have  preserved  it  in  a  \\3.y  that  no  other  class  of  people  have  pre- 
served it;  they  have  won  fame  and  honor  in  ever}-  time.  Scotchmen  indeed 
V'ou  are,  and  well  ma}-  you  be  proud  of  the  fact.  But  gentlemen,  I  am  here 
to-da}'  to  tell  you  something  of  another  child  of  the  Covenant,  another  in 
whose  veins  the  same  blood  was  flowing  as  that  which  flows  through  the 
veins  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  a  quiet,  honest,  simple  man;  a  man  who  by 
his  daily  labor  earned  his  daiU"  bread,  a  mad  who  walked  in  and  out  among 
his  people  of  Robeson,  and  who  was  known  for  his  simplicity,  his  hon- 
est}-.  But  two  of  the  counsel  in  this  case  have  had  a  good  word  to  say  for 
poor  Sim.  Conolej-,  of  this  poor  man  who  lies  in  an  untimely  grave  near  the 
old  church  at  Antioch.  A  child  of  the  Covenant— for  some  wise  purpose  of 
His  own  the  Almighty  Jehovah  withdrew  His  helping  hand  and  Sim.  Cono- 
ley  has  met  his  God.  On  a  calm,  quiet  night  in  April  last,  beneath  the 
shimmering  moonlight,  Simeon  Conole}-,  in  the  kindness  of  his  heart,  under- 
took to  guide  one  to  the  house  of  a  neighbor;  I  can  almost  see  his  slender 
form  and  stooped  shoulders,  his  shambling  f'ootsteps  as  he  walked  in  ad- 
vance of  his  murderer,  through  the  moonlight  down  near  the  field,  and  I 
have  wondered  during  the  progress  of  this  cause  if  that  man,  ifit  be  the  defend- 
ant, an  officer  in  the  church,  trained  in  the  Sunday'  School,  taught  the  cate- 
chism at  his  mothei's  knee,  learning  through  all  his  life  the  lessons  of  the 
Bible,  if  indeed  it  be  he  who  committed  this  foul  deed,  if  he  had  thought  of 
the  words  of  the  mighty  prophet  of  old  who  said  that  God  would  send  one 
to  whisper  in  our  ears,  "This  is  the  pathway,  walk  3'e  in  it  and  turn  neither 
to  the  right  hand  nor  the  left."  They  reached  the  field,  the  fatal  shot  was 
fired  and  Simeon  Conole\'  fell,  according  to  the  testimonj'  of  sworn  witnesses, 
because  according  to  the  tcstimon}-  the  murderer  then  came  around  in  front 
of  him,  squatted  down  and  fired  the  last  and  the  fatal  shot,  and  the  bullet  was 
found  in  the  ground  beneath  Simeon  Conoley.  The  silver  moon  still  shed 
light  over  alt  that  land,  the  life  blood  ebbed,  and  there  from  the  head  ot 
Simeon  Conolej'  his  guilty  murderer  must  have  seen  it  and  believed  that 
ever}-  shaking  leaf,  every  dark  spot  in  the  lonely  woods,  was  filled  with  the 
murdered  spirit  of  his  victim.  The  counsel  for  the  defense  who  has  Just 
taken  his  seat  tells  you  that  the  defendant  has  proved  that  he  is  not  the 
guilt}-  man.  God  grant  that  he  has.  There  is  no  blood  in  my  heart,  there 
is  no  desire  on  my  part  to  take  the  life  of  any  human  being;  I  come  here  at 
the  instance  of  no  corporation,  no  capitalists,  pleading  for  the  death  of  any 
man.  I  come,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  at  the  call  of  the  people  amongst 
whom  I  was  born  and  raised,- to  ask  you  in  their  name,  in  behalf  of  their 
protection,  to  find  the  murderer.  I  expect  to  endeavor  to  perform  that  duty 
honestly  and  fairly.  I  shall  not  deal  in  criminations  against  counsel;  I 
believe  that  they  are  all  honorable,  high-toned  gentlemen;  some  of  thera  I 
have  kwown  from  my  childhood,  and  1  know  that  any  one  might  he  glad  to 
occupy  their  positions  in  the  estimation  of  the  people  of  this  country.  But 
it  is  my  duty  to  present  this  case  to  you  fairly  and  honestly,  to  aid  you  in 
my  humble  way  to  see  that  justice  is  done.  If  I  shall  have  accomplished 
this,  with  no  harsh  words  towards  any  one,  I  shall  be  satisfied  that  I  have 
done  my  duty. 

The  first  thing,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  you  are  to  endeavor  to  do  in 
this  cause  is  to  take  this  testimony,  when  you  go  into  that  jury  room  and  see 
if  you  cannot  come  to  a  just  and  correct  conclusion,  without  the  necessity  of 
saying  that  any  man  has  sworn  falsely;  reconcile  the  testimony  if  you  can; 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  133 

let  no  evil  spirit  come  between  you  and  the  performance  of  your  dut3^  but, 
gentlemen,  be  guided  b}'  him  who  is  the  God  of  Love  and  Mercy  and  before 
whose  tribunal  we  all  one  day  must  answer.  The  counsel  have  told  3-ou 
that  thf  counsel  for  the  State  have  acted  unfairl}-,  that  at  least  four  times 
the}'  have  violated  the  laws  of  evidence  and  the  laws  of  North  Carolina.  He 
rebukes  us,  he  sa3S  his  Hooor  rebuked  us  b}-  deciding  agains  lis,  and  he 
then  tells  j'ou  that  we  are  blood-thirstj'.  Capt.  Norment  tells  you  that  we 
did  not  put  on  all  of  our  witnesses  and  therefore  we  have  not  been  fair  and 
candid  with  you.  Now  let  us  see  how  it  is.  I  want,  if  possible,  to  present 
this  case  to  3'^u  fairly  without  leaving  an^'  stain  or  an^-  suspicion  on  an\-  of 
the  counsel,  JtTld  so  I  desire,  hrst,  to  call  your  attention  to  the  positions  taken 
by  these  two  gentlemen.  He  tells  yon  that  we  did  not  put  on  the  stand  all 
of  our  witnesses.  In  that  how  have  we  injured  the  defendant  or  the  counsel  ? 
If  we  had  testimony'  here  that  was  stronger  than  that  we  introduced  should 
not  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  and  his  counsel  be  grateful  to  us  because  we  did 
not  put  it  on  the  witness  stand  ?  If  we  did  not  have  such  testimou}'  here, 
then  we  are  not  to  blame,  but  if  we  did  and  failed  to  put  it  on,  the  testimony 
was  still  liere  and  they  could  have  used  it.  So  }'ou  see  thev'  are  not  afTected 
by  it;  the  interests  of  the  prisoner  are  not  affected  by  it;  the  two  counsel  for 
the  State  have  done  no  wrong.  Now,  is  not  that  so?  As  reasonable,  sen- 
sible men,  is  not  that  so.-"  If  we  had  testimonj'  here  that  was  stronger  than 
that  which  we  introduced,  is  not  that  a  favor  to  the  prisoner?  Should  we  be 
accused  of  acting  in  bad  faith  towards  the  prisoner  because  we  did  not  intro- 
duce it.  Has  the  prisoner  been  affected  b}-  it?  Not  at  all;  because  the  same 
rule  that  applies  to  the  State  applies  to  the  defendant,  and  the\'  could  intro- 
duce the  testimou}';  so  you  see  the  mountain  has  resolved  itself  into  a  very 
small  mole-hill. 

My  friend,  Capt.  Norment,  tells  j'ou  that  the  defendant  in  this  case  went 
to  Alma  on  Tuesday  morning,  and  was  there  seen  bj-  his  brother,  by  I\Ir. 
Sellers  and  by  Air.  McCiirt.  Capt,  Norment,  as  \-ou  know  when  you  think 
of  the  evidence,  is  mistaken;  the  defendant  did  go  to  Alma  on  Wednesday 
morning,  the  day  after  the  commission  of  this  crime;  Mr.  Sellers  did  see  him 
in  the  store,  INlr.  McCiirt  saw  him  with  his  brother  on  the  lumber  yard,  and 
his  brother  went  with  him  up  to  Laurinburg  on  the  midda\-  train,  and  the 
defendant  staid  at  the  house  of  Simeon  Conoley  Wednesday  night,  and  he 
said  this,  "it  was  a  good  thing  that  brother  John  did  come  with  me  to 
Laurinburg,  otherwise  I  could  not  come  out  here  to-night."  Now,  gentle- 
men of  the  jur\',  if  that  had  been  Tuesda\'  morning,  that  would  have  been 
accounting  for  the  prisoner;  Capt.  Norment  thought  it  was  Tuesday*  morn- 
ing and  that  the  prisoner  was  accounted  for  all  that  day,  but  the  Captain  is 
mistaken,  mistaken  according  to  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  for  the  State 
and  for  the  defendant.  It  could  not  be  Tuesda}'  because  Mr.  Sellers  and  Mr. 
Mc(jirt  both  swear  to  3-ou  that  it  was  Wednesday  morning  about  7  o'clock 
when  they  saw  him  at  Alma,  and  that  the}'  never  saw  him  at  that  place  be- 
fore. There  is  the  positive  testimon\-  of  two  disinterested  witnesses  and  the 
statement  of  the  defendant  himself  that  it  was  Wediiesda3'  morning  that  he 
had  been  to  Alma  and  brought  his  brother  back  with  him. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  sa}'  something  to  3011  about  the  motive  in 
this  case;  but  let  me  sa3'  this,  that  the  counsel  for  the  State  does  not  propose 
to  take  up  3'our  time  b3'  reading  a  number  of  law  books;  you  have  on  the 
Bench,  as  the  presiding  ofTicer  of  this  Court,  a  gentleman  distinguished  for 
his  abilit3',  for  hi.s  integrit3',  for  his  impartialit3',  for  his  knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  North  Carolina,  and  it  is  his  dnt3'  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  law 
applicable  to  this  case;  3'ou  are  to  take  no  law  from  counsel,  but  you  are  to 
take  it  from  his  Honor  on  the  Bench;  so  it  is  useless  for  us  to  consume  3-our 
time  reading  law  books;  but  we  are  to  be  followed,  and  3'ou  are  to  be  told 
that  3-ou  are  to  be  guided  b3'  the  law  as  laid  down  b3-  the  Court.  One 
other  thing  in  the  consideration  of  this  case:  when  30U  get  into  the  jury- 
room  3'ou  are  not  to  be  guided  b3-  the  statement  of  counsel  as  to  the  evidence; 
you  are  not  to  be  guided  bv'  their  testimon3-  in  the' case,  because  none  of  us 
have  been  sworn,  but  3^ou  are  to  take  the  testinion3'  as  it  came  from  the 
mouths  of  the  witnesses,  and  upon  that,  and  that  alone,  to  see  whether  or 
not  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  is  guilty. 


134  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  September  of  last  year,  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  George  Currie,  the  prisoner  came  to  the  house  of  Simeon  Conolcy, 
and,  after  spending  the  night,  left  home  with  him  next  morning  in  the  di- 
rection of  John  Wilkes';  early  that  morning  Simeon  Conoley  went  uptto  the 
house  of  John  Wilkes,  and  while  talking  with  him  pulled  some  cand}'  out  of 
his  pocket,  and  the  counsel  for  the  defense  tells  5'ou  that  he  had  not  eaten 
any  of  that  candy  until  he  got  there  where  Wilkes  was.  Wilkes  swears  to 
3'ou  that  there  were  three  large  balls,  he  took  two  and  ate  them  and  gave  one 
to  his  little  son.  Sim.  Conoley  was  eating  some  of  the  candy  with  Wilkes, 
but  in  a  few  moments  he  complained  of  being  sick;  they  carried  him  into  the 
house  and  in  a  few  moments  he  was  prostrated;  his  head  was'^drawn  back, 
his  limbs  became  rigid,  and  from  the  symptoms,  as  detailed  by  the  witness 
here.  Dr.  Prince  tells  you  that  the  man  was  poisoned  and  that  it  was  strych- 
nine. Mark  this  now,  because  I  think  I  will  make  it  plain  as  we  go  on  a 
little  further  into  the  mattei.  There  were  three  large  red  balls  eaten  by 
Wilkes  and  his  son;  there  were  some  little  shoes,  and  the  rest  of  the  candy, 
Wilkes  said,  looked  like  sugar  plums  or  something  of  that  kind.  When 
Mrs.  Wilkes  saw  the  condition  of  Sim.  Conoley  in  that  house,  she  threw  the 
candy  in  the  fire,  so  that  evidence  has  been  lost.  In  about  an  hour  and 
a-half  they  got  a  physician  there  and  gave  him  an  emetic,  and  the  counsel 
for  the  defen,se  relies  on  that  to  convince  you  that  Simeon  Conoley  was  not 
poisoned,  but  that  the  sudden  sickness  was  caused  by  something  else;  well, 
now,  against  that  supposition  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  you  have  the  posi- 
tive testimony  of  a  distinguised  physician,  who  tells  you  that  all  the  symp- 
toms indicate  strychnine,  and  that  the,  man  would  have  recovered  in  an 
hour  and  a-half  or  two  hours  without  an  emetic.  Now  what  are  you  to 
gather  from  that?  This,  that  the  amount  of  strychnine  which  Sim.  Conoley 
ate  was  not  sufficient  to  kill  him,  althoujrh  it  came  very  near  doing  it.  Now, 
is  there  any  doubt  about  that  ?  He  had  not  ueen  off  anj-where  so  far  as  the 
evidence  shows  to  get  any  candy  or  anything  poison;  he  was  seen  leaving 
his  home  that  morning  in  company  with  his  nephew,  and  he  goes  to  the 
house  alone  a  few  minutes  afterwards.  What  do  we  hear  next?  Shortly 
after  that,  in  the  town  of  Laurinburg,  the  prisoner  went  to  a  drug  store  and 
said  he  wanted  some  brandy  drops.  Young  Mr.  Powell  Hill  was  engaged 
in  sweeping  out  the  store  and  the  prisoner  told  him  that  he  would  go  be- 
hind the  counter  and  get  them,  would  not  trouble  him.  Is  there  anything 
strange  in  that,  when  you  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  prisoner 
had  as  good  a  character  at  that  time  as  any  man  in  Richmond  county,  that 
he  was  a  merchant  in  the  town  of  Laurinburg;  is  there  anything  unnatural 
in  the  fact  that  this  boy  should  say,  "  all  right,  Mr.  MeDougald,  "  and  go  on 
with  his  sweeping?  Is  it  not  natural  and  reasonable?  Mr.  MeDougald 
went  behind  the  counter  and  was  so  long  that  Powell  Hill  asked  him  if  he 
could  not  get  what  he  wanted,  and  proposed  that  he  come  and  get  it;  he 
came  up  and  Mr.  MeDougald  says,  "I  won't  take  this  candN',  I  will  take  5 
cents  worth  out  of  the  show  case;  "  he  got  the  5  cents  worth  of  candy.  A 
short  time  afterwards  MeDougald  comes  back  to  the  drug  store,  the  drug- 
gist, Mr.  Everington,  is  in  then  and  he  tells  him  he  wants  to  buy  some 
brandy  drops.  Mr.  Everington  says  to  him,  "  well,  here  are  some  that  have 
been  opened  for  some  time  and  they  may  be  stale,  I  will  open  a  new  box  for 
you,  I\Ir.  MeDougald.  "  Thought  so  much  of  the  prisoner  that  he  did  not 
want  to  sell  him  stale  bandy  drops  when  he  had  fresh,  but  the  reply  was, 
"  no,  give  me  that  box,  "  and  it  was  handed  to  him  and  he  passed  into  the  rear 
of  the  store  to  the  presence  of  Dr.  Prince.  He  asked  him  what  that  white  powder 
was.  Upon  an  examination  by  Dr.  Prince  and  Mr.  Everington,  a  chemical 
examination,  thej'  swore  it  was  str5'chnine — powdered  strychnine.  It  is  in 
evidence  before  3'ou  that  this  drug  store  had  been  newly  opened;  that  Mr. 
Everington  had  ordered  some  strychnine,  both  in  crystal  and  in  powdered 
form;  that  none  of  the  bottles  containing  the  powdered  str3-chnine  had  been 
opened,  but  the  crN'stal  had.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that  testimony,  is  there  ? 
so  it  could  not  have  been  ^accident,  there  was  no  powdered  strychnine  in  that 
drug  store  that  could  get  into  the  box.  The  defendant  called  for  brandy 
drops  out  of  this  box,  said  to  Dr.  Prince  that  he  had  just  heard  that  Simeon 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  185 

Conoley,  or  his  tenant  I  believe  he  put  it,  had  been  poisoned  with  candy  that 
he  liad  given  him — brandy  drops — and  he  wanted  this  box  of  candy  examined. 
He  said  he  had  a  note;  Dr.  Prince  natural!}'  asked  him  for  the  note,  in  order 
to  ascertain  something  more  about  it;  he  had  unfortunately  left  it  at  home 
and  that  is  the  last  that  we  have  heard  of  the  note.  As  I  said  before,  the 
candy  was  examined  by  Dr.  Prince  and  strychnine  was  found  in  the  box; 
every  day  brandy  drops  had  been  so'.d  in  the  regular  course  of  business  in 
the  town  of  Laurinburg;  some  had  been  sold  on  the  Saturday  evening  pre- 
vious and  no  complaint  had  come  to  the  ears  of  anybody  that  any  one  had 
even  been  injuriousl}'  affected  by  it — no  suspicion  of  poison  or  anything  of 
the  kind  so  far  as  we  have  heard. 

Just  prior  to  that  Mr.  Roper  came  to  Mr.  McDougald  and  told  him  that 
he  understood  that  Mr.  Conolej^  wanted  to  insure  his  life,  and  he  wanted 
the  good  influence  of  Mr.  McDougald  to  get  him  to  insure  in  his 
company;  he  did  insure  in  that  company.  The  insurance  agent  tells 
you  that  he  liad  no  conversation  with  Mr.  Conoley'  about  it,  that  it 
was  all  with  Mr.  INIcDougald;  that  Mr.  McDougald  paid  the  first  pre- 
mium of  S239,  and  that  that  amount  was  to  be  paid  annuall}'  on  this 
$5,000  policy.  At  that  time  what  was  the  financial  condition  of  the 
prisoner  and  the  man  who  now  sleeps  in  a  lonely  grave  near  the  old 
church  at  Antioch  ?  Mr.  McDougald  was  a  prosperous  merchant  according  to 
the  testimon}-  of  some  of  the  witnesses,  worth  $4,000  or  $5,000,  with  an  ex- 
alted charactei,  with  the  confidence  and  esteem  of  all  the  people  aroutid 
there.  Simeon  Conolej-,  prior  to  that,  had  given  a  mortgage  on  the  land  that 
he  owned  to  Mr.  Thomson  in  this  countj^  his  sister,  Lizzie  Conoley,  had 
gone  to  the  prisoner  and  induced  him  to  take  up  that  mortgage  from  Mr. 
Thomson.  The  prisoner  was  the  owner  of  it;  according  to  the  testimony  of 
McBryde,  Sim.  Conoley  was  so  poor  that  he  worked  out  daily  for  his  bread, 
and  that  he  had  seen  him  repeatedly  coming  home  in  the  evening  with  his 
rations  on  his  shoulder.  Now  that  is  the  financial  condition  of  the  two  men. 
This  story  of  the  poison  seems  to  have  been  hushed  up — the  attempt,  if  at- 
tempt it  was,  to  poison  the  deceased  for  that  insurance  of  his,  and  nothing 
more  is  heard  of  it  for  some  time  afterwards;  but  on  a  fateful  Tuesda}'  night 
in  April  last  Sim .  Conoley  met  his  fate.  The  next  day  George  Currie,  a  col- 
ored man,  took  a  buggy  and  went  to  Laurinburg  after  the  prisoner  to  go 
down  to  where  the  dead  body  of  his  uncle  was  lying.  Now,  gentlemen,  it  is 
in  testimony  before  you  by  every  witness  that  the  relations  between  the  pris- 
oner and  the  deceased  were  of  the  most  intimate  kind;  that  the)'  met  each 
other  joyfully,  that  ihey  were  warm  friends.  During  that  ride  across  the 
country  to  the  dead  body  of  his  uncle  we  would  suppose,  naturally,  he  would 
be  thinking  about  the  murder,  and  would  have  been  racking"  his  brains  to 
devise  some  means  whereby  the  man  who  did  it  might  be  brought  to  justice. 
Ls  not  that  reasonable,  is  not  that  what  you  would  have  done?  But  the 
prisoner  at  the  Bar  does  not  do  that;  what  does  he  do?  He  inquires  of  this 
negro  man  if  Sim.  Conoley  had  not  used  1,500  pounds  of  lint  cotton  to  make 
a  payment  on  a  little  piece  of  land  that  he  had,  and  George  told  him  that  he 
had,  and  the  reply  that  came  from  the  mouth  of  the  prisoner  was,  "  it  was 
my  mules  and  my  guano  that  made  that  cotton.  " 

Is  that  all?  On  the  next  day  we  find  McDougald  at  the  burying 
at  Antioch.  He  is  talking  with  Mr.  John  Currie;  he  says  he  is  tired  and 
wearied  and  proposes  that  thej'  shall  go  and  sit  in  a  buggy.  Mr.  Currie 
makes  some  inquiry  about  Conoley's  property,  about  his  land,  and  McDoix- 
gald  tells  him  that  that  land  is  his,  and  he  says  further,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  Sim.  Conoley  had  u.sed  1,500  pounds  of  his  cotton  to  pay  on  the 
Graham  land.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  you  are  Scotchmen,  if  30U  believe 
as  most  of  the  Scotch  do,  then  3'ou  are  having  evidence  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  an  over-ruling  Providence,  that  there  is  a  Prov-idence  which  directs 
our  paths,  and  you  can  find  the  hand  of  Providence  in  this  place,  at  the 
burial  of  Sim.  Conoley;  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  tells  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  he  owned  the  land,  that  his  uncle  had  taken  his  cotton  to  pay  for 
the  Graham  land;  he  tells  you  that  Millard  Moore  had  no  motive  in  the 
world  to  kill  his  uncle;  thoughtlessly  he  made  that  statement,  for  a  week 


136  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

afterwards  we  hear  that  he  charges  Millard  Moore  with  doing  it.  The 
]\Iighty  Being  who  rules  our  destinies  would  not  permit  this  atrocious  crime 
to  Be  unknown  forever,  and  therefore  He  goes  on  uncovering  the  path  of  the 
man  that  did  the  fatal  deed.  Wednesday  night,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
while  sitting  in  the  house  with  the  dead  body,  Wednesday  night,  the  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  made  another  statement;  when  his  sister  mentioned  Lum 
Johnson  and  said  that  he  might  have  done  it,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  said, 
"No,  hehe  could  not  have  done  that,  he  was  at  his  work."  There  you  have  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  exonerating  two  who  were  charged  with  it  in  the  begin- 
ning; there  he  has  told  the  family  circle  that  Lum  Johnson,  the  name  that 
was  given  at  the  time  the  crime  was  committed,  was  not  the  man  who  did 
it;  and  he  tells  3'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  the  day  before  he  left 
Laurinburg  for  Wilmington  on  the  morning  train,  came  back  on  the  night 
train,  got  left  at  Maxton,  and  went  to  Alma  the  next  morning.  Now,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  was  there  no  motive  in  all  this?  The  prisoner  at  the 
bar  had  a  mortgage  for  which  he  paid  money,  the  deceased  was  a  man  in 
humble  circumstances  who  had  nothing;  this  life  insurance  policy  had  been 
gotten  out  for  the  benefit  of  whom?  For  the  benefit  of  that  one  who  in- 
duced him  to  advance  the  amount  of  that  mortgage  in  order  to  save  the  land, 
Margaret  or  Lizzie  Conole\'.  As  long  as  Simeon  Conole}^  lived  it  would 
be  for  him  to  pay  that  $239  every  year,  and  Simeon  Conole}-,  instead  of  being 
grateful  for  it,  was  taking  his  cotton,  made  with  his  mules  and  guano,  and 
making  an  improper  disposition  of  the  proceeds  of  the  farm.  If,  however, 
that  life  policy  would  be  paid,  Lizzie  Conoley  would  be  able  to  repay  Me- 
Dougald all  the  advances  he  made  on  th?  land,  all  the  advances  that  he 
had  made  in  order  to  secure  this  policy,  all  the  advances  he  had  made  to  all  of 
those  people,  and  he  would  have  his  money  and  not  have  to  wait  until  the 
death  of  Sim.  Conolej'. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Sim.  Conoley,  at  the  time  that  the  pol- 
icy was  taken  out,  was  in  health  and  strength;  his  poor  old  mother,  who 
was  here  on  the  witness  stand  in  this  Court,  says  that  she  is  86  years  old 
and  Sim.  was  40  3'ears  old.  It  was  possible  that  Sim.  Conoley  might  live 
50  years  yet.  Now,  in  ascertaining  the  motive,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you 
are  not  tr\nng  to  ascertain  one  that  would  be  sufficient  in  your  mind;  that 
is  not  therule,  because  it  is  likely  that  you  could  find  no  motive  sufficient 
to  induce  3'OU  to  take  the  life  of  mortal  man,  that  no  amount  of  money,  or 
fame  or  honor,  or  anything  that  this  world  could  give,  would  be  sufficient  to 
cause  3'ou  to  stain  3'our  hands  with  the  blood  of  a  fellow  being.  So  it  is  not 
to  be  such  a  motive  as  you  would  deem  sufficient,  but  such  a  one  as  the  de- 
fendant would  deem  sufficient.  What  was  more  important  to  this  man, 
when  he  was  driving  along  to  Sim.  Conoley's,  the  murdered  soul  of  Conoley 
winging  its  wa3^  to  the  Spirit  land,  or  the  1,500  pounds  of  lint  cotton  that  had 
passed  into  the  hands  of  a  stranger?  Was  he  thinking  of  his  poor  murdered 
uncle  at  the  grave  on  Thursda3^  when  he  was  talking  to  J.  H.  Currie  about 
his  uncle's  land,  and  about  the  misappropriation  of  the  cotton,  about  the  fact 
that  Millard  Moore  did  not  kill  him.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  the  mem- 
or3'  of  man  fails,  the  memorv'  of  Him  who  rules  the  destinies'  of  meii  as  well 
as  of  nations  is  not  at  fault,  and  He  imprints  marks  upon  the  paths  of  our 
lives,  unknown,  unnoticed,  perhaps,  but  yet  well  defined,  that  shall  stamp 
us  through  all  eternit3'.  Ah,  here  is  the  motive  gathered  from  the  mind  of 
the  prisoner  less  than  48  hours  after  the  commission  of  this  terrible  offence. 
I  submit  that  you  cannot  have  anv'  doubt  about  that. 

Well,  now,  each  of  the  counsel  has  made  this  argument:  that  we  have 
not  identified  the  cut  of  the  beard;  are  under  great  misapprehension  as  to  the 
height;  that  most  of  the  witnesses  for  the  State  are  strangers  to  the  defend- 
ant; that  some  of  those  who  knew  him  describe  him  differentl3^  from  what 
others  do,  and  that  because  of  this  the  defendant  is  not  guilty.  Well,  gen- 
tlemen, if  we  had  shown  that  the  prisoner  wore  the  same  coat,  the  same  hat, 
the  same  sort  of  whiskers,  looked  preciseU^  alike,  and  that  every  individual 
penson  on  that  pathwa3'  from  Laurinburg  on  Tuesday  morning  to  Simeon 
Conole3''s  Tuesday  night,  back  to  Maxton  on  Wednesday  morning,  knew 
and  identified  the  prisoner,  they  would  have  said  to  3^ou  that  you  must  not 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  137 

consider  this  testimony  because  it  was  manufactured;  that  it  is  impossible 
for  such  a  number  of  individuals  to  swear  precisely  to  all  the  incidents  in 
the  vSanie  way;  that  the}'  would  look  at  them  in  a  different  -way;  they  would 
have  different  recollections,  and  for  various  reasons  it  would  be  impossible 
to  gather  together  as  many  witnesses  as  the  State  have  done  so  that  they 
would  prove  every  single  circumstance  precisely  alike.  You  must  believe 
that  testimony,  because  3'ou  know  that  the  Holy  Book  itself,  in  some  of  the 
most  important  facts,  as  told  by  different  witnesses,  are  told  in  a  differ- 
ent way.  Take  the  last  night  of  the  Saviour  with  his  disciples,  and  you 
find  it  related  by  the  disciples  each  in  a  different  way:  the}'  tell  3'ou  the 
main  fact,  but  the  words  of  each  and  the  manner  of  telling  it  is  entirely 
different  by  everj'  one  who  mentions  it;  and  you  find  all  throughout  the 
Hoh'  Book  such  statements  as  that.  Now,  if  prophets  and  apostles  would 
differ  as  to  minor  facts,  can  you  expect  witnesses  now  not  to  differ,  and  is  not 
that  a  sufficient  reason  why  this  testimony  is  true? 

But  one  of  the  counsel  says  to  j'ou  that  this  motive  that  is  urged  is 
unnatural.  Well,  now,  he  is  endeavoring  to  get  you  to  come  to  a  conclusion 
that  they  think  best.  If  you  can  not,  then  you  are  to  do  your  duty  whether 
it  affects  them  or  not. 

When  the  .stars  first  sang  in  the  morning  of  creation  there  was  a  murder 
committed  by  a  man  of  high  character  upon  the  bod}'  of  his  brother,  and 
why  ?  Because  he  believed  that  the  Lord  flavored  his  brother  most,  and  then 
a  little  spirit  of  jealousy  from  the  old  Serpent  got  into  his  heart,  and  he 
brooded  over  it  until  at  last  he  killed  his  om'u  brother.  King  David,  the 
man  after  God's  own  heart,  conmiitted  murder,  and  for  a  trivial  object. 
Achan,  when  he  was  specially  commanded  by  the  Almighty  to  take  nothing 
of  the  enemy,  brought  into  his  tent  the  wedge  of  gold,  and  for  this  he  and 
his  family  were  stoned.  Ciehazi,  when  Naaman  came  to  the  mighty  prophet 
in  order  to  be  cvired,  and  the  prophet  would  not  charge  him  nor  take  any  of 
the  presents,  Gehazi,  who  was  to  follow  in  his  footsteps,  slipped  out  and 
followed  Naaman  and  got  a  little  of  the  gold.  Was  that  unnatural.-'  and  yet 
we  know  that  this  man  Gehazi  was  to  stand  in  the  footsteps  of  his  master, 
and  was  to  hold  converse  with  the  Lord,  and  he  gave  it  all  up;  the  love  of 
gold  had  come  into  his  heart,  and  he  took  the  present,  and  the  next  thing 
we  find  of  this  man  who  was  to  stand  so  high  in  the  history  of  the  world,  we 
find  him  covered  with  lepros}'  and  his  three  sons.  Go  out  into  profane  his- 
tory and  you  will  find  where  men  of  high  character,  distinguished  in  the 
walks  of  life,  have  committed  such  crimes  as  this  with  a  less  motive  than  the 
prisoner  had. 

Now,  gentlemen,  on  Tuesday  morning,  the  2i.st  of  April,  1891,  the 
pri.soner  left  his  home  in  Laurinburg  and,  according  to  the  testimony  of  all 
the  witnes.ses,  got  to  INIaxton.  .  Mr.  Cottingham  swears  he  got  off  at  Maxton; 
Mr.  McNair  swears  he  went  on  to  Alma.  I  know  Dugald  McNair,  I  know 
he  is  a  good  boy,  but  I  think  that  the  same  rule  that  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fense asked  you  to  apply  to  Phillips  should  apply  to  this  case.  The}'  say 
you  must  not  believe  Phillips,  because  it  is  a  strict  rule  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany here  that  each  conductor  must  go  in  and  register  in  a  book  when  the 
train  leaves  the  moment  of  its  leaving,  and  that  there  is  no  record  in  the 
railroad  ofiQce  here  of  any  train  leaving  on  that  day.  It  is  true,  the  3'ard 
master  swears  he  paid  Phillips  for  working  in  the  shop  that  day,  but  sa3'S 
when  they  are  on  the  road  part  of  a  day  only,  they  just  go  on  and  give  them 
credit  on  the  shop  books  for  the  whole  day's  work.  Not  a  single  one  of 
these  witnesses  swear  that  that  train  did  not  go  out  that  da}-;  the}'  do  not 
remember  anything  about  it  except  the  record.  Is  not  that  so?  Every  sin- 
gle one  of  them,  the  yard  master,  master  mechanic,  two  operators,  I  think 
that  is  all,  tell  you  that  they  have  no  recollection  except  as  they  could 
gather  it  from  the  books.  And  the  counsel  say  you  must  not  believe  that 
testimony  becau.se  a  direct  rule  of  the  road  has  been  violated.  Now  sup- 
pose we  apply  that  to  my  friend  Dugald.  Let  me  ask  you  which  the  Presi- 
dent of  a  railroad  is  most  interested  in,  the  exact  moment  of  the  departure 
of  the  train,  or  the  number  of  the  shekels  that  his  agents  gather  in  during 
the  day  ?    What  is  it  that  he  wants  most  ?     Don't  you  know  it  is  the  money  ? 


138  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDoiigald 

Don't  you  know  that  there  is  a  strict  rule  about  the  collection  and  payment 
of  the  faie  on  these  railroads?  Whj',  the  witness  teils  yon  the  prisoner  was 
a  good  Christian  and  his  friend,  therefore  he  would  not  charge  him.  Well, 
now.  gentlemen,  in  this  good  Scotch  country  up  here,  if  every  railroad  con- 
ductor would  pass  every  man  who  was  a  good  moral  Christian  man  or  woman, 
this  Cape  Fear  and  Yadkin  Valley  Railroad  would  not  get  in  much  money; 
they  would  have  a  pretty  hard  time  if  every  man  who  is  considered  a  good 
Christian  is  given  a  free  pass;  there  vi'ould  not  be  much  chance  for  a  divi- 
dend. They  sa3\  throw  out  the  testimony  of  Phillips  on  that  account; 
we  ask  you  to  throw  out  the  testimony-  ot  Dngald  McNair;  we  sav, 
that  if  you  take  the  testimony  of  Dugald  IVIcXair,  it  does  not  clear  the 
prisoner;  why  Alma  is  two  miles  and  a-quarter  from  the  tank  at  Maxton; 
Dugald  IMcNair  swears  that  he  reached  there  at  ten  minutes  past  seven  on 
Tuesday  morning;  Cole  swears  to  you  that  the  tank  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  is 
in  the  woods,  and  that  just  twenty  minutes  before  the  time  for  the  freight 
train  to  leave,  8.35,  he  saw  the  prisoner  sitting  at  the  tank;  so  be  had  an 
hour  and  five  minutes  from  the  time  he  got  off  the  cars  at  Alma,  two  and 
a-quarter  miles  from  that  tank,  to  get  there,  did  he  not  ?  It  is  established  by 
the  time  tables  of  the  railroad,  and  the  only  trouble  about  Dugald  McNair's 
testimony  is  this,  that  there  are  other  parties  at  Alma  who  knew  him;  John 
Sellers  swore  he  did  not  see  him  that  morning.  Who  did  see  him  .-'  There 
was  Mr.  INIcGirt,  he  did  not  .see  him;  he  was  not  seen  b}'  his  own  brother, 
who  saw  him  on  Wedne.sda\'  and  went  back  with  him  to  Laurinburg.  So  no 
human  eye  was  laid  upon  that  man  that  morning  except  that  of  Dugald 
^IcXair,  and  then  an  hour  and  fifteen  minutes  after  that  you  find  him  at  the 
railroad  track. 

Now,  is  there  any  doubt  about  Daniel  McDougald  being  on  the  train 
that  morning?  You  certainh'  have  no  doubt,  becau.se  all  the.se  witnesses 
identify  him;  have  3'ou  any  doubt  about  his  arrival  at  the  water-tank  ?  Mr. 
Cole  de.'jcribes  him  and  he  tells  3'ou  that  he  told  him  he  was  McDoiigald  from 
Laurinburg.  Coun.sel  sa3'S  that  is  unnatural,  that  it  is  strar^ge,  that  he 
would  not  tell  who  he  was  if  he  was  going  on  to  commit  a  crime.  But,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jvLvy,  onlv  an  hour  before  that  he  had  been  with  his  acquain- 
tances and  friends,  and  he  put  himself  off  the  cars  at  Alma,  taking  the  view 
that  Dngald  McNair  is  correct,  and  if  he  did  go  to  Alma  Tuesday  morning 
with  Dugald  McNair,  he  did  it  in  order  to  hide  his  tracks,  he  did  it  in  order 
to  lo.se  himself  at  Alma,  to  put  himself  in  such  a  position  as  tobeableto 
show  his  whereabouts  if  this  thing  ever  came  up  ag.'^in.st  him,  to  show  that 
be  could  not  have  been  at  both  places  on  the  same  morning.  But  we  find 
him  back  at  Maxton  at  the  tank.  Now,  here  is  Mr.  Cole,  a  reputable  white 
witness,  who  was  there  in  the  performance  of  his  duty,  and  he  tells  you  this 
man  told  him  his  name  was  McDougald.  Xon^  Smith  saw  him  there,  de- 
scribes him  with  a  duster  just  as  McCormick  describes  him;  I  understand 
the  counsel  to  say  that  Mr.  McCormick  said  he  had  three  bundles  wrapped 
in  newspaper;  Tom  Smith  only  speaks  of  the  newspaper  wrapper,  don't 
swear  to  the  bundles;  but  that  is  an  immaterial  matter,  because  thev  were 
all  wrapped  in  one  bundle.  Lizzie  McCoy,  an  old  colored  woman  who  has 
known  him  ever  since  his  boyhood,  sa}\s  she  went  up  and  spoke  to  him  and 
asked  him  what  he  was  doing  there  at  the  tank,  and  he  told  her  he  was  go- 
ing off.  Mr.  Lockamy  tells  yon,  "this  gentleman  got  on  the  car  with  me, 
rode  up  to  Wakulla;  did  not  talk  any  to  me,  held  his  head  down  part  of  the 
time."  And  here  the  defendant  injects  a  new  witness,  and  asks  3'ou  to  be- 
lieve him,  Mr.  DeVane.  He  sa^'s  von  must  not  believe  Cole.  Tom  Smith, 
Lizzie  McCoy,  nor  Conductor  Lockamy,  but  that  3'ou  must  take  the  testimo- 
of  Mr.  DeVane;  why,  Mr.  DeVane,  they  sa3%  says  the  man  looked  taller  than 
the  pri.soner;  that  he  could  not  swear,  but  that  it  was  his  impres- 
sion that  it  was  not  he;  that  his  face  was  a  little  darker  than 
it  is  now.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Mr.  DeVane  was  a  stranger  to 
the  prisoner;  he  tells  you  he  saw  him  that  day  while  the  train  wa.s 
running  a  di.stance  of  two  miles,  probably  less  than  five  minutes  he  was  on 
that  train;  there  was  the  time  taken  up  in  getting  on,  getting  a  .seat,  and  the 
time  taken  up  in  getting  up,  and  yet  they  ask  you  to  believe  this  gentleman 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  139 

who  does  not  swear  positively  about  these  things,  who  never  saw  the  pris- 
oner before  and  never  saw  him  afterwards,  until  he  saw  him  here,  I  believe. 
Well,  now,  is  the  impression  of  a  stranger  before  'anyone  of  us.  that  bethinks 
the  man  on  the  train  was  a  little  taller  than  the  defendant,  and  that  the  man 
on  the  train  was  a  little  darker  than  the  defendant,  when  he  tells  30U,  hon- 
est, candid  as  he  is,  when  he  tells  30U  that  the  f)ri.soner  at  the  Bar  has  been 
in  jail  for  some  time  and  would  bleach;  yet  the  counsel  for  the  defense  grave- 
ly asks  you  to  throw  aside  the  testimony-  of  all  of  these  other  witnesses  and 
rely  upon  that  alone  to  try  this  case — upon  an  impression,  not  upon  actual 
evidence. 

We  hear  no  more  of  the  prisoner  then  until  he  reaches  Shandon.  Well, 
now,  we  find  a  man  going  along  that  road  at  Shandon  with  a  long  duster  on, 
with  a  blonde  moustache,  with  a  black  slouch  hat,  with  a  black  bundle  and 
a  long  duster,  a  light-colored  duster,  going  up  the  railroad  towards  the  Lum- 
berton  and  Carthage  road.  The  counsel  say  you  must  not  believe  Charlotte 
Dumas,  because  it  will  make  the  train  too  long,  that  is  the  reason;  the  house 
in  which  she  lived.  Col.  French  put  it,  is  two  hundred  yards  from  the  depot; 
my  friend,  Bro.  Shaw,  put  it  three  or  four  hundred  yards;  gentlemen  of  the 
jurv,  there  is  no  evidence  before  you  that  the  train  stopped  preciselv  at  the 
depot,  or  where  it  stopped;  but  they  are  not  to  overthrow  the  testimony  of 
Charlote  Dumas,  the  train  could  have  pa.ssed  Charlotte  Dumas  before  Mr. 
McDougald  got  off  the  train.  She  is  corroborated  by  W.  C.  McPhail,  and  it 
has  been  shown  that  he  is  a  man  of  high  character,  admitted  b\'  all  the 
counsel  who  addressed  you  that  he  is  a  man  of  high  character;  he  saN'S  this 
man  with  a  long  duster,  a  medium  seized  man,  was  going  up  the  road  to- 
wards Conoley's,  and  he  tells  you  the  man  must  have  passed  b}-  Charlotte 
Dumas'  house  to  get  to  where  he  saw  him.  But  it  is  a  white  man  that  has  gone 
so  far,  according  to  testimony ;  identified  in  the  beginning,  he  answers  to 
the  same  general  description  until  we  find  him  leaving  Shandon.  What  time 
did  he  leave  there?  It  is  important  that  x^ou  should  remember  that;  Mr. 
McPhail  swears  that  it  was  at  i  o'clock  in  the  evening;  Mr.  Jeff  Cobb  saw  a 
man  with  a  long  duster,  as  he  came  out  of  his  gate  about  2  o'clock  that 
evening;  the  man  with  the  long  duster  on  passed  his  gate,  he  had  on  a  black 
slouch  hat,  a  black  looking  bundle  and  a  long  duster,  going  up  the  road. 
He  saw  Fannie  Meares  going  in  the  opposite  direction,  passing  him;  saw 
Henry  Smith  pass  him.  Well  now,  the  counsel  tell  \'ou  that  Mr.  Cobb  is  a 
young  man  of  high  character,  honest  and  upright  and  to  be  perfectly  trusted, 
but  they  tell  you  that  Mr.  Cobb  did  not  see  his  face,  and  that  this  statement 
of  these  darkies  as  to  his  being  painted  has  all  been  hatched  up  since  that;  it 
did  not  come  out  at  the  trial  before  a  magistrate  and  that  it  has  been  gotten 
up,  hatched  up,  manufactured,  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  in  this  Court. 
Fannie  Meares  tells  you  that  he  was  a  curious  looking  man,  and  as  .soon  as 
she  got  back  home  she  told  her  father  about  it;  but  Henr}'  Smith  tells  you 
he  was  up  in  a  cart  on  the  edge  of  the  road  or  in  the  road  when  a  painted 
man  pa.ssed  him;  that  he  had  white  spots  on  his  knuckles  where  he  was 
holding  his  bundles,  and  as  he  bowed  his  head  he  saw  some  white  spots  on 
the  back  of  his  neck;  that,  the  coun.sel  for  the  defense  tells  you,  is  all  manu- 
factured, and  these  witnesses  have  been  tampered  with  by  a  foreign  corpora- 
tion, influenced  by  them,  and  swore  to  a  lie  in  order  to  convict  an  innocent 
man. 

Jeff  Cobb  met  Henry  Smith;  don't  he  tell  you  that  Henrj'  Smith  came 
up  and  told  him  about  this  painted  man,  and  Cobb  made  some  remark  to 
him  about  it,  and  Henr}-  Smith  said,  "why  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Cobb,  that  man 
was  painted,  because  I  saw  white  spots  on  him?"  Now,  in  order  to  displace 
that,  you  must  say  that  Jef^  Cobb  wilfully  swore  to  a  lie. 

[Counsel  for  tliedefen.se  interrupts  to  say,  "we  do  not  charge  Jeff  Cobb 
with  anything;  his  character  is  unquestioned."] 

I  said  that  you  charge  that  the.se  negroes  had  been  tampered  with;  there- 
fore, if  his  character  is  unquestioned,  there  can  be  no  alternative  but  to  be- 
lieve his  statement.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  see  that  it  is  important  to 
ask  the  time  when  this  man  was  at  Shandon,  and  the  time  the  train  got 
there,  and  the  time  Jeff.  Cobb  saw  him,  and  }ou  must  remember  that  this  same 


140  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

good  vs'itness,  JefF  Cobb,  testified  to  you  that  there  were  woods  between  his 
house  and  Shandon,  and  that  on  that  side  of  the  road  on  which  jNIr.  McPhail 
lived,  the  woods  extended  nearly  upto  Mr.  McPhail's;  so  you  have  gotthetime, 
3'ou  have  got  the  secret  place  in  which  the  defendant  coiild  disguise  himself, 
and  you  find  him  in  the  public  road  at  the  expiration  of  one  hour,  disguised, 
so  much  so,  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  these  two  colored  people,  and  to 
draw  the  attention  of  Henr\^  Smith  to  the  fact  that  there  were  white  spots 
between  the  knuckles  and  on  the  back  of  his  neck.  The  next  witness  is  Mrs. 
Humphrc}-,  and  she  saw  this  man,  she  describes  him  very  near  as  the  others, 
she  puts  a  wig  on  him  with  long  hair.  Does  not  that  corroborate  what 
Henrj-  Smith  has  said,  that  he  was  standing  up  in  the  cart,  looking  down  at 
the  prisoner,  and  when  he  bowed  saw  on  his  neck  these  white  spots  ? 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  only  discrepancy'  in  the  testimonj-  so 
far  is  this:  one  describes  the  duster  as  light-colored,  another  as  mud-color, 
another  sa^-s  it  was  drab,  another  dove-colored.  I  expect  we  would  make 
about  the  same  mistake  if  we  would  go  down  the  street  and  try  to  tell  the 
color  of  a  piece  of  goods  in  a  store;  there  are  not  man3'  of  us  here  that 
woiild  have  the  same  opinion  of  it,  unless  it  was  a  ver3-  marked  color,  black, 
white  or  red.  He  has  on  glasses  when  Mrs.  Humphrey  sees  him,  colored 
glasses  she  believes.  Then  we  come  to  the  house  of  one  of  the  best  men  in 
Robeson  count3\  admitted  to  be  a  man  of  the  very  highest  character  b}'  counsel, 
and  established  by  the  evidence;  he  reached  Mr.  Neill  Smith's  house,  and  he 
was  standing  at  his  gate  talking  to  Conoley.  Gentlemen,  you  saw^  that  old 
farmer  on  the  witness  stand;  j'ou  could  gather  from  his  hesitation  and  the 
deliberation  with  which  he  spoke  that  he  is  a  prudent  and  a  cautious  man, 
and  that  he  will  make  no  statements  unless  he  was  firmlj'  convinced  of  their 
truth.  He  sa^'s  that  he  saw  the  man  pass  there  with  a  long  duster  buttoned 
up  around  him,  with  this  black  bundle  on  a  stick;  told  George  the  man 
looked  like  he  was  painted,  was  not  a  natural  looking  black,  could  not  have 
been  a  natural  looking  black,  because  old  man  Neill  Smith  told  you  that  he 
looked  like  he  was  painted.  He  saj's  this  man  had  on  a  dark  looking  wig 
and  side-whiskers.  We  do  not  offer  you  this  evidence  from  Fannie  Tvlears  as 
to  the  wig;  we  do  not  offer  you  this  evidence  from  some  penson  who  was  not 
a  close  observer,  not  a  person  of  prudence  who  would  be  easilj-  deceived,  but 
the  same  Almighty  Providence  that  directed  the  prisoner  to  use  the  words 
that  he  did  to  John  Conolej^  on  the  da}'  of  the  burial,  has  directed  him  in 
this  eventful  journej'  to  the  house  of  Neill  Smith,  and  there  you  find  the 
painted  man,  be-wigged  and  side-whiskered  as  he  was  at  the  concert  in 
Laurinburg.  He  tells  3'OU  this  man  was  about  the  size  of  the  prisoner; 
but  there  is  one  other  statement  that  he  made  that  it  may  be  is  still 
more  important :  he  tells  you  that  Mr.  McDougald  was  partly  raised 
in  that  .section,  and  that  he  was  acquainted  M-ith  him.  So  now,  you 
have  got  this  painted  and  be-wigged  man  on  the  public  highwa}',  at 
Neill  Smith's,  about  three  miles  from  Shandon;  you  have  established 
that  he  is  painted,  that  he  had  on  a  wig,  that  he  was  partly  raised  in 
the  neighborhood  and  was  familiar  with  that  country.  This  strange  man, 
after  leaving  Ntill  Smith's,  takes  a  short-cut  and  he  passes  b}'  John  Con- 
ole3'  at  work  in  the  woods,  going  then  on  a  road  that  crosses  the  public  road, 
according  to  the  testimon3'  of  the  witness,  that  would  lead  to  Simeon 
Conole3''s.  Is  not  that  proof,  coming  from  another  witness  now,  that  Mr. 
Neill  Smith  is  a  cautious,  prudent,  safe,  reliable  man.  Here,  between  three 
and  four  o'clock,  .some  miles  from  Mr.  Smith's,  this  man  is  tound,  not  on  a 
public  road,  but  is  found  on  a  road  leading  a:ross  the  public  highway  in  the 
direction  of  Simeon  Conole3''s.  Now,  the  onU'  .statement  the  counsel  has 
made  as  affecting  the  testimonv'  of  Conoley  is  that  he  is  terribl}'  black. 

That  was  about  two  miles  from  Mr.  Smith's;  the  ne.xt  place  is  Mr.  John 
Wilkes'.  You  saw  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes  on  the  stand,  this  3-oung  girl  who 
has  never  been  in  a  court  house  before,  this  Scotch  lassie,  who  has  proved  a 
good  character;  she  comes  and  gives  3'OU  a  plain,  unvarnished  narrative;  she 
tells  3'ou  this  man,  disguised  with  a  duster,  with  dark  pants,  with  a  bundle 
and  a  black  slouch  hat,  passed  her  father's  house  about  an  hour  b3'  sun 
going  in  the  direction  of  Simeon  Conoley 's.     So  we  have  McDougald,  if  you 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley,  141 

believe  the  testimon3^  at  the  town  of  Alma  one  hour  and  thirty-five  minutes 
before  the  train  left  Maxton;  we  find  him  at  Maxton  at  the  tank  twenty 
minutes  before  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  train;  we  find  him  telling 
the  road  master  there  that  his  name  was  McDougald  from  Laurinburg;  we 
find  an  old  negro  woman,  who  has  known  him  all  his  life,  speaking  to  him 
and  talking  to  him  as  Daniel  McDougald.  We  find  him  on  that  train  in 
company  with  Mr.  Lockamy,  paj-ing  his  way  to  Shaudon.  We  find  then 
that  Mr.  Lockamy  is  out  of  that  car  until  it  passed  Shaudon  engaged  in  the 
duties  of  his  position,  and  we  find  a  man  answering  to  his  description  going 
by  Charlotte  Dumas'  house;  we  find  him  passing  in  sight  of  Mr.  McPhail  at 
the  depot,  on  the  Lumberton  road;  we  find  that  there  is  a  piece  of  woods  on 
the  other  side  of  which  he  is  next  seen,  and  then  he  is  a  painted  man,  with 
white  spots  on  his  hands  and  neck;  a  short  distance  after  that  he  is  seen  by 
an  old  neighbor,  who  testifies  that  Daniel  McDougald  was  familiar  with 
that  section  of  the  country;  has  on  a  wig  and  side  whiskers;  and  then  the 
testimony  of  Conoly  and  ^liss  Sallie  Wilkes,  and  you  have  come  within  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  place  where  the  murder  was  committed. 

On  the  next  daj-  the  body  was  discovered.  But  I  want  to  call  your 
attention  to  one  fact :  this  defendant  had  written  a  letter  in  which  he  closes 
with  this  statement,  "  Von  know  you  can  fool  them  to  death."  That  was  the 
defendant's  estimate  of  his  uncle  Sim,  his  aunt  Lizzie  and  his  grandmother, 
that  you  would  fool  them  to  death.  When  Sim.  Conoley  was  killed,  one 
of  the  witnesses  testified  that  his  aunt  Lizzie  made  some  inqtxir}'  about  Sim- 
eon's return,  and  that  Edwin  said,  "oh,  never  mind,  they  are  shooting  par- 
tridges out  there  in  the  field,"  and  they  went  to  sleep  and  thought  no  more 
about  it.  Now  don't  you  think  they  were  easily  fooled,  if  they  thought  that 
Sim.  and  the  stranger  were  out  there  at  that  hour  of  the  night  shooting  par- 
tridges with  a  pistol  ?  Well,  now,  Tuesday  night  vSini.  Conoley  was  killed 
and  left  lying  in  the  field,  and  the  next  place  where  these  clothes  appeal? 
was  at  Campbell's  Bridge,  about  thirteen  miles  from  where  the  dead  mad 
was.  What  occurred  now  between  the  time  of  the  death  of  Sim.  Conoley 
and  the  time  those  clothes  were  discovered  by  that  negro  going  to  his  work 
the  next  morning,  lying  near  the  water  at  Campbell's  Bridge?  Through  all 
the  lonely  hours  where  was  the  man  who  committed  the  offence?  Lurking 
in  the  .shadow  or  fleeing  from  the  moonshine?  His  counsel  told  j'ou  that 
there  are  numerous  swamps  on  his  way  and  that  he  would  have  stopped  and 
washed  awa}'  the  tell-tale  marks.  The  heart  of  a  man  must  be  hardened.i 
harder  than  that  of  a  brute,  if  he  could  deliberately  take  the  life  of  his  own' 
uncle,  and  then  go  deliberately  into  the  darkest  recesses  of  some  swamp  and, 
with  no  eye  upon  him  but  that  of  his  God,  stop  to  wash  oft  the  stains.*  Gentle^ 
men,  it  required  an  amount  of  courage  that  few  men  have.  You  ma}-  say 
it  is  superstition;  you  may  say  that  this  is  talk  about  the  old  Scotch  Ban- 
shee; gentlemen  it  is  not  superstition,  but  it  is  a  fact  that,  however  bold  we 
may  be,  if  we  have  committed  a  sin,  in  the  dark  hours  of  the  niy^ht,  when 
no  human  eve  is  upon  us,  then  is  the  time  that  it  tortures  us  most;  then  is 
the  time  that  we  tr3'  the  hardest  to  get  away  from  the  clutches  of  the  evil 
one.  Gentlciiien,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  this  man  McDou- 
gald hurriedly  pa.ssed  along 'that  road  on  that  moon-light  night,  passed 
through  the  swamps,  passed  the  fields,  until  he  came  near  that  bridge  and 
not  very  far  from  the  saw  mill;  there  he  concluded  that  he  would  remove 
these  clothes,  he  would  destroy  them,  and  he  would  wash  away  the  black 
paint.  Did  he  do  it?  Just  about  daylight  this  negro  man,  who  came  up 
there,  saw  those  clothes  and  stopped  and  looked  at  them.  Now  where  was 
the  prisoner?  Do  you  think  he  was  sitting  there  by  that  river-side  in  calm' 
security  in  the  sweet  peace  of  innocence,  or  was  he  listening  and  trembling 
with  fear  that  .some  human  footstep  would  pass  that  way  and  see  him  befi:)re 
he  completed  his  disguise,  and  if  he  heard  a  step  would  he  not  flee?  Did  he 
not  flee  ?  Did  the  man  who  left  those  clothes  there  leave  with  ample  time 
and  deliberate  purpo.se?  Why  was  it  that  the  clothes  were  partly  in  the 
stream  and  partly  out?  Wliy  was  it  that  the  little  looking-glass  was  found 
shattered  there  b}'  the  first  man  that  comes  that  way? 

The  counsel  said  a  good  deal  about  Gillespie,  the  negro  of  bad  character, 


142  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

who  lives  three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  Campbell's  bridge;  the}' tell  you  that 
the  State  has  abandoned  Edgar.  Gentleman  of  the  jury,  no  one  of  the  coun- 
sel for  the  State  has  ever  asked  3'ou  to  pass  a  verdict  against  the  prisoner 
upon  the  unsupported  testimony  of  Edgar  Gillespie;  but  we  saj'  to  you  this, 
that  a  bad  man  may  sometimes  tell  the  truth,  that  because  his  character  is 
bad  it  does  not  necessarih'  follow  that  everything  he  says  is  false.  When  a 
statement  of  his  is  proved  and  corroborated  by  a  man  of  good  character,  then 
you  are  to  take  it.  Now  that  is  the  position  of  the  State;  that  is  all  we  ask. 
He  tells  Hector  Gilchrist,  before  Mr.  McDougald  had  ever  been  suspected, 
that  it  was  Mr.  Daniel  McDougald  who  came  there  and  got  the  water  and 
washed  his  face.  He  tells  Mr.  Hester  some  weeks  after  a  different  statement. 
Let  us  think  about  this.  Edgar  Gillespie,  a  negro  of  bad  character,  now 
don't  3-0U  think  he  would  be  apt  to  get  himself  into  trouble  if  he  got  it  over 
that  countr\-  that  Mr.  Daniel  McDougald  was  at  his  house  before  daylight 
washing  paint  off  of  his  face?  Is  it  probable  that  he  would  have  told  it  to 
Mr.  Hester,  a  firm  friend  of  the  prisoner,  and  tell  it  to  his  employer,  another 
firm  friend  of  the  prisoner,  Mr.  McKinnon?  Put  these  two  circumstances 
together;  there  was  no  reason  in  the  world  for  him  to  tell  a  story.  First  he 
tells  Hector  Gilchrist;  after  it  is  discovered  or  charged  that  Mr.  McDougald 
is  the  man,  then  Edgar  Gillespie  shuts  his  mouth,  because  he  has  been  told 
to  do  it,  and  rather  than  connect  this  gentlemen  of  high  character  with  it  he 
tells  Mr.  Hester  he  did  not  know  him. 

Now.  gentlemen,  I  think  the  testimony  discloses  a  similar  state  on  the 
part  of  the  prisoner.  He  was  carried  to  Lumberton  jail  upon  his  being 
brought  back  from  Oregon;  his  intimate  friend  and  old  time  partner,  Phil- 
lips, goes  in  there  to  see  him,  expresses  S3-rapathy  with  him,  and  sorrow  for 
him,  and  asks  him  some  questions  about  it,  and  the  replj'  of  the  prisoner  is, 
"I  don't  want  to  talk  about  it;  m}'  counsel  has  told  me  not  to  do  so."  He 
does  not  say  to  his  old-time  friend,  "I  am  innocent."  Oh  no,  but  that  he 
don't  care  to  talk  about  it,  his  counsel  has  cautioned  him  not  to.  Edgar  Gil- 
lespie says  he  received  a  similar  caution  and  he  obeyed  directions. 

But  that  is  the  end  that  morning  until  we  find  him  at  Maxton,  and 
there  the  conductor  tells  3'ou  that  Mr.  McDougald  was  crouching  down 
against  the  side  of  the  depot  on  ttie  platform;  that  is  his  expression; — that 
he  shook  hands  with  him  and  that  he  did  not  notice  any  black  on  his  face. 
Well,  now,  that  may  all  be  true,  and  all  this  is  true  so  far  as  is  stated 
by  the  conductor;  he  would  not  tell  anything  wrong;  and  the  statement 
of  the  other  witnesses  may  be  true;  two  of  them  swore  that  they  did 
see  black,  some  of  it  under  his  right  eye  and  in  the  creases  of  his 
neck;  on6  of  them  says,  "he  attracted  me  on  account  of  his  seedy 
appearance."  The  conductor  tells  you  on  the  other  hand  that  he  did 
not  see  anything;  here  3'ou  have  got  positive  testimou}'  against  negative 
testimon3\  If  you  and  I  were  out  together  walking  under  an  apple  tree, 
and  you  would  look  up  and  see  an  apple  in  it  and  would  come  in  here 
and  sweat  that  you  did,  and  I  would  get  on  the  stand  and  swear  that  I  was 
with  you  and  I  saw  the  apple  tree  but  no  apple,  would  that  disprove 
your  statement?  One  of  the  counsel,  the  last  I  believe,  tries'  to  make  you 
believe  that  Mr.  Powers  examined  him  closely;  that  Mr.  Powers'  head  was 
within  a  foot  of  his  face.  Well,  I  never  heard  of  that  testimony  before,  and 
my  friend  has  made  a  mistake.  He  was  careful  of  his  personal  appearance, 
and  neat,  so  testif}^  all  of  the  witnesses,  and  Mr.  Herring,  who  evidently 
knew  him,  because  he  lived  there  at  Laurinburg,  sa^'s  he  was  attracted  on 
account  of  his  seedy  appearance,  that  caused  him  to  look  closer  and  he  saw 
these  discolorations.  Mr.  Sellers,  though,  tells  you  he  did  not  see  any;  that 
does  not  dispose  of  the  testimony'  of  Mr.  Herring,  because  Mr.  Sellers  told 
you  he  just  came  into  the  store  and  spoke  to  him  and  went  on.  Then  he 
goes  down  to  this  brother's.  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  it  not  reasonable  to 
presume,  that  when  the  defendant  got  there,  he  washed  at  his  brother's 
house?  Why  of  course  he  did.  When  he  goes  back,  he  meets  Mr.  McGirt 
and  there  are  no  stains  on  him.  Now,  you  can  find  that  all  of  the  witnesses 
in  regard  to  this  black  on  his  face,  every  single  one  of  them,  after  he  left 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  143 

Campbell's  Bridge  have  told  the  truth  and  the  whole  truth,  that  the  prisoner 
was  blacked  as  they  describe  him,  because  it  is  a  positive  affirmative  state- 
ment on  the  part  of  two  that  he  had  spots,  and  simply  negative  statement 
on  the  part  of  the  others. 

Then  he  goes  from  Alma  with  his  brother  vp  to  Laurinburg.  If  there 
should  bt  any  mistake  or  any  doubt  in  \our  minds  as  to  whether  or  not  he 
has  been  identified  and  traced  so  far,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  what  oc- 
curred at  Laurinburg.  Remember  this  is  Wedne.sday;  according  to  the  the- 
ory of  the  coun.sel  for  the  defense  the  prisoner  had  not  seen  Mr.  Conoly,  he 
tells  you  through  Mr.  Robbins  that  he  had  received  a  note  that  his  tenant 
was  dtad.  Away  back  in  the  testimony  30U  hear  sometimes  something 
about  his  uncle  Sim.  wanting  to  insure,  about  his  uncle  Sim.  having  execu- 
ted a  mortgage  to  Mr.  Thomson,  now  you  find  that  he  is  Mr.  McDougald's 
tenant. 

[At  this  point  the  recess  for  dinner  was  taken,  after  which  Col.  Rowland 
continued  his  argument.] 

May  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  :  I  have  already 
talked  to  you  longer  than  I  expected  to  do  when  I  commenced,  and  I  prom- 
ise you  to  be  as  brief  as  I  can.  Now  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  what 
was  done  by  the  prisoner  at  Laurinburg  on  the  Wednesdaj-  after  the  com- 
mission of  this  murder.  We  first  find  liim  at  the  store,  and  the  first  conver- 
sation he  had  with  Mr.  Robbins  he  gave  him  a  minute  account  of  the  mur- 
der; he  tells  yon  that  the  murderer  placed  himself  on  the  path  leading  from 
the  direction  of  Sim.  Conoley's  house,  thinking  that  Conole\'  would  pa.-5S 
that  way,  but  that  afternoon  he  supposed  that  he  did  not;  then  he  describes 
where  the  murderer  went  from  that  point  up  to  the  rear  of  the  stable, 
back  of  the  garden,  around  on  the  other  side  of  the  house  to  the  fence 
and  there  escaped.  Now  I  told  you  this  morning  that  I  believed  there 
was  an  overruling  Providence  that  directed  our  ways,  unnoticed  and  un- 
known to  us  perhaps,  at  all  times,  and  imprints  upon  our  lives  marks  which 
our  companions  and  associates  may  recognize.  Is  not  it  so?  The  prisoner 
tells  you  that  he  went  to  Wilmington  on  Tuesday  morning;  Tuesday  night 
he  came  back  to  Maxton,  remained  there  all  night,  went  to  Alma  Wednesday 
morning,  with  his  brother  back  to  Laurinburg.  and  when  he  got  there  he 
learned  of  the  death  of  his  tenant.  According  to  his  own  statement  he  had 
not  been  there,  and  ^-et,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  he  tells  3'on  how  the  murderer 
took  his  position,  went  from  the  murdered  body  back  to  the  house  and  back 
from  the  hou.se  to  the  murdered  body.  How  was  it,  if  the  prisoner  was  not 
there,  had  not  been  to  the  scene  of  the  murder,  how  was  it  that  he  could  de- 
scribe it  in  the  way  he  did  ?  He  said  he  had  received  a  note,  but.  gentlemen, 
do  you  believe  that  that  note  contained  a  full  description  of  the  murder,  of 
the  place  and  these  matters  that  would  hardly  occur  to  any  but  an  eye-wit- 
ness? Do  30U  think  that  this  is  reasonable?  He  told  Mr.  McMillan  the 
same  thing,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  Now  this  is  Wednesdav.  I  ask  3'ou  as 
practical,  thinking  men,  can  you  reconcile  this  conversation  with  his  inno- 
cence? Take  from  this  case  all  the  evidence  oflered  by  the  State  except  these 
two  witnesses,  and  how  then  can  you  say  the  defendant  is  innocent  ? 

On  Wednesday  afternoon,  as  1  said  to  }ou,  he  goes  with  George  Currie 
to  the  Conoley  place;  he  remans  there  that  night;  tells  Miss  Lizzie  Conoley 
that  it  would  be  hard  to  find  any  clue  to  the  mucder.  This  is  a  horrid  deed 
committed  upon  the  person  of  his  uncle,  and  yet  the  first  statement  you  find 
from  him,  and  all  the  other  statements  you  find  him  make,  is  that  it  would 
be  hard  to  find  aiu-  clue  to  the  murder.  He  makes  the  same  statement  that 
he  was  in  Wilmington  on  Tuesday,  went  down  on  the  freight  train  in  the 
morning,  came  back  on  the  train  that  night,  and  we  have  shown  you  b\'  the 
officials  on  those  trains  that  Mr.  McDougald  was  not  on  further  than  Alma. 
Now  he  must  have  been  somewhere,  from  there  until  the  next  day.  Then 
on  Thursday  we  find  him  at  the  burial  and  from  there  he  goes  home.  He 
says  there  that  it  would  be  hard  to  find  any  clue  to  the  murderer.  On  Friday  we 
find  him  again  on  the  train  with  James  McBr\de,  his  special  friend,  a  man  who 
earnestly  intends,  as  a  citizen  of  the  town,  to  discover  wiio  committed  this 
crime.     Did  not  he  frankly  tell  Mr.  McDougald  all  that  he  had  heard  when 


144  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

he  came  back  to  go  and  get  the  clothes;  that  Mr.  Hamilton  McMillan  was 
endeavoring  to  get  up  some  evidence;  and  the  defendant  said,  "Can  a  man 
be  convicted  in  this  State  on  circumstantial  evidence  ?"  Not  onlj'  did  he  get 
off  of  one  train  at  Wilmington  and  get  on  the  other,  but,  on  Saturday  morn- 
ing, he  went  to  the  mill  and  got  the  clothes  and  showed  them  to  McKinnon. 
He  was  on  the  road  going  in  the  direction  of  his  home  at  Laurinburg;  not 
as  Capt  Norment  endeavored  to  impress  upon  j'ou,  that  he  was  going  in  the 
direction  of  Conoley's  and  that  the  clothes  were  lost  that  night.  This  is 
Saturday  morning  and  he  is  going  towards  Laurinburg.  James  McBryde 
was  there  on  the  Sundaj'  following,  and  the  next  da}^  had  a  talk  with  him 
and  told  him  that  Mr.  McMillan  had  said  that  there  was  an  impression  that 
the  man  that  got  on  the  train  at  the  tank  must  be  the  guilty  person.  He 
did  not  exhibit  the  clothes  to  Mr.  McBr3'de,  but  tells  him  his  father  has 
some  clue  that  he  won't  reveal.  You  never  hear  of  those  clothes  again, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  defendant  is  there,  surrounded  by  his 
friends  and  associates,  men  who,  according  to  the  statement  of  Col.  French, 
were  willing  to  risk  their  lives  in  his  defense;  3et  you  have  no  account  of 
any  exhibition  of  the  clothing  until  next  ^Vednesda3^  Saturday',  Sunday, 
Mondaj'  and  Tuesdaj^  the  clothes  are  kept  at  Laurinburg.  Tuesday  he  starts 
back  to  John  Conolej-'s  and  takes  the  clothing;  he  is  met  that  morning  by 
Mr.  Hodgin,  a  reputable  citizen  of  that  county  and  one  who  was  anxious  to 
find  out  the  criminal.  Mr.  Hodgin  asks  him  about  the  clothes,  but  he  does 
not  show  them  to  him.  That  blacksmith  asks  him  about  the  clothes,  but 
he  does  not  show  then  to  him.  Now,  this  was  before  there  had  been  one 
thing  against  Mr.  MeDougald;  the  cr}^  then  was  against  Moore  and  Kelly, 
they  were  the  men  who  were  suspected;  he  goes  on.  D.  E.  McBryde,  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  and  his  uncle,  Mr.  Conoley,  had  sworn  out  a  warrant 
against  Millard  Moore;  Mr.  McBryde  tells  him  that  there  is  an  impression 
abroad  that  the  man  who  got  on  the  train  at  the  tank  must  have  been  the 
guilty  person,  and  saj^s,  "they  say  that  3'ou  tried  to  poison  your  uncle  last 
fall."  Does  he  make  any  answer  to  the  charge  of  poisoning?  None.  To 
the  other  he  saj^s,  "I  can  prove  my  whereabouts;  if  you  have  no  further  use 
for  me  I  will  go  home."  He  did  not  go  from  there  home;  he  went  from  there, 
if  you  are  to  believe  the  witnesses,  and  he  met  John  Conoley,  and  he  and 
John  Conoley  went  to  the  home  of  his  grandmother,  and  they  returned  about 
9  o'clock  that  night,  and  that  night  the  clothing  were  stolen.  Mark  you, 
it  had  been  impressed  upon  the  prisoner  the  importance  of  preserving  those 
clothing ;  he  had  been  told  by  at  least  two  of  his  friends  that  the  clothing  might 
be  important  testimony  hereafter;  and  yet  he  goes  to  John  Conoley's,  who 
was  so  frightened,  according  to  the  statement,  that  he  takes  unusual  precau- 
tions to  shut  himself  up  in  his  house,  and  Mr.  MeDougald  at  the  same  time 
leaves  those  important  clothing  out  in  the  road-cart  all  night.  John  Cono- 
ley, notwith.standing  his  statement,  notwithstandine  the  fact  that  the}'  had 
placed  this  screw  over  the  latch  of  the  door  so  that  nobod}'  could  possibly 
come  in,  says  in  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  his  son,  should  he  carry  those  cloth- 
ing in,  that  "  nobodj'  has  ever  stolen  anything  around  here;"  so  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  place  a  robber  has  been  to  it.  Now,  why  on  this 
particular  night  ?  Why  was  it,  when  the  prisoner  had  not  been  to  John 
•Conoley's  for  seven  or  eight  j-ears,  why  was  it  that  he  went  there  that  night; 
from  there  to  his  grandmother's  and  then  back,  and  spent  the  night?  Next 
morning  he  was  notified  of  the  loss  of  the  clothing.  Does  he  go  in  search 
for  them?  Neal  Conoley  tells  you  that  two  of  the  boys  searched  around 
there  through  the  woods,  but  that  Daniel  MeDougald  takes  the  road-cart 
and  horse  and  goes  home,  accompanied,  I  believe,  by  one  of  the  boys  a  part 
of  the  way.  The  counsel  would  make  the  impression  on  you  that  he  was  so 
frightened  that,  like  in  the  da3's  of  the  Lowries,  he  took  a  different  road. 

There  is  no  particle  of  evidence  of  that.  The  evidence  is  that  this  young 
Conolej'  went  with  him  a  part  of  the  way,  and  he  meets  Mr.  Purcell  and  Dr. 
•Gilbert  and  one  or  two  others,  and  he  tells  them  that  he  has  been  unfortunate 
in  losing  the  clothes  down  at  his  uncle's.  You  can  not  change  their  tes- 
timony. He  goes  on  to  Laurinburg.  There  has  been  a  great  deal  said  in 
this  case  about  lynching,  yet  on  that  Thursday  we  have  the  first  intimation 


foT  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  145 

of  lynching  and  it  comes  from  the  hands  of  the  defense.  A  friend  swears  that 
he  got  a  note  asking  him  to  come  np  with  a  picked  crowd  of  fift3-  men;  that 
Millard  Moore  would  be  at  McBryde's  that  night  and  they  would  be  met; 
the  picked  crowd  of  fifty  men  did  not  come,  and  that  perhaps  has  saved  the 
life  of  Millard  Moore.  On  the  next  morning  we  find  the  defendant  on  the 
train  going  to  Charlotte.  He  tells  D.  B.  Livingston,  not  that  the  clothes 
were  lost  at  Conole3''s,  not  a  word  of  that  comes  from  his  lips  that  da3^  he 
tells  him  they  are  in  the  office  of  his  attorney-,  John  D.  iShaw,  Jr.,  and 
will  be  at  the  trial  the  next  day  down  in  Robeson.  The  counsel  say  that  is 
a  mistake,  that  he  did  not  sa^'  they  were  in  John  D.  Shaw's  office;  but  there 
is  no  doubt  about  his  statement  that  the}-  would  be  produced  the  next  day; 
the  prisoner  knew  that  the  clothing  had  been  stolen,  knew  that  the^-  would 
not  be  at  the  trial  of  Millard  Moore  the  next  cay,  and  yet  he  tells  Living- 
ston that  the  clothes  would  be  there;  that  he  had  left  them,  and  Mr  Living- 
ston tells  you,  as  confirmatory-  of  his  testimon}-,  that  he  told  two  gentlemen 
in  Laurinburg  what  Mr.  McDougald  had  said. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the.se  warrants  have  been  going  out  against  white  men, 
you  have  not  heard  anything  yet  about  a  painted  man;  I  mean  the  defendant, 
so  far  as  we  know,  had  heard  nothing  at  all  so  far  about  a  painted  man;  but 
he  tells  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lyon  on  this  authority  that  it  was  a  white  man  dis- 
guised who  murdered  his  uncle,  and  the  power  of  the  law  in  Robeson  county 
at  the  very  time  was  being  brought  to  bear  on  white  men  who  were  suspected 
of  this  crime  and  were  charged  with  it.  Now  I  ask  30U  to  remember  this, 
that  at  that  trial  going  on  at  Mill  Prong  three  white  men  were  before  the 
Court,  not  disguised,  not  charged  with  being  divSguised,  but  charged  with 
being  either  the  murderers  or  accessories  to  it,  and  the  evidence  was  directed 
solely  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the.se  three  white  men  or  either  one  ot 
them  did  it.  The  question  of  blacking  was  a  secondarj^  matter,  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Court  had  not  been  brought  to  it;  it  was  white  men  that  they 
were  investigating.  IMillard  Moore  and  his  associates  were  discharged  on 
Friday  morning;  no  evidence  against  them;  so  that  if  the  purpose  of  the  de- 
fendant had  been  carried  out  the  probability-  is  that  one  or  two  more  of  those 
men  would  have  been  sent  to  their  last  resting  place  on  the  preceding  day. 
He  tells  you  that  Millard  Moore  is  not  guilt}-.  He  told  Mr.  John  A.  Currie 
that  the  trouble  between  Millard  Moore  and  his  uncle  had  all  been  settled, 
and  there  was  no  reason  for  charging  Millaid  Moore  with  it,  yet  he  says 
afterwards  differently;  he  tells  his  aunt  Lizzie  that  Lum  Johnson  was  not 
guilt}-  because  he  was  at  his  work;  tells  30U  further  that  it  was  a  painted 
white  man  who  committed  this  murder. 

Flight,  gentlemen,  is  a  strong  circumstance  in  this  case.  Now,  what 
reason  does  he  give  for  his  flight.^  Not  that  there  was  an}-  attempt  to  l3-nch 
him;  not  that  an3-  charge  had  been  made  against  him,  except  what  came 
from  1).  K.  Mc]ir3de  as  he  says  in  a  joking  wa3-;  but  the  indignation  of  the 
people  was  arou.si^d  against  whoexer  committed  this  deed.  Mr.  Livingston 
told  him  there  on  the  train  that  he  would  be  one  of  five  men  to  13-nch  the 
man  who  did  it,  not  knowing  that  iNIcDougald  had  an3-  connection  with  it  at 
all.  He  told  McRae  on  the  return  trip  from  Oregon  that  he  left  the  State 
because  he  did  not  want  to  have  an3'  trouble  with  Millard  Moore,  an3'  law- 
suit witli  Millard  Moore;  Millard  would  try  to  fix  it  on  him  and  he  did  not 
want  to  have  any  trouble.  The  prisoner,  notwithstanding  his  excellent 
character,  mi  good  financial  condition,  surrounded  by  his  numerous  friends, 
gives  up  home,  gives  up  his  friends  and  relatives,  gives  up  all  that  is  near 
and  dear  to  him  before  he  would  get  into  a  suit  v^ith  this  poor,  miserable 
^lillard  Moore,  who  is  described  to  3-ou  in  this  case  as  a  jail-bird  and  a  man 
of  bad  character.  What  an  unnatural  thing  that  this  man  of  high  character 
should  flee  the  State  and  leave  all  behind  him  in  order  to  avoid  a  law  suit 
with  Millard  Moore.? 

The  counsel  for  the  defense  say  the  concert  has  passed  out  of  this  case; 
that  you  must  not  legard  that  or  pay  any  attention  to  it,  because  they  have 
shown  that  Mr.  Phillips  had  on  the  duster,  not  the  defendant.  The  concert 
was  introduced  into  this  case  simply  to  show  you  how  perfectl}-  this  defen- 
dant could  disguise  himself,  and  the  defense  has  made  out  the  case  even 


146  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

stronger  than  the  State,  because  we  had  witnesses  on  the  stand  who  believed 
that  he  wore  the  duster  on  that  night  and  who  said  they  could  not  recognize 
him;  those  friends  that  night  who  saw  him  in  the  bright  glare  of  the  light, 
who  knew  him  so  well  and  had  known  him  so  long,  were  so  perfectly  igno- 
rant as  to  which  was  he  that,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  counsel  for 
the  defense,  thej-  took  him  for  some  one  else;  the  prisoner  had  disguised  his 
face  and  his  walk  and  his  appearance  so  completely  that  none  ot  them  could 
identify  him,  and  the  man  that  thej-  supposed  to  be  the  defendant  was  a  dif- 
ferent man.  Mr.  Rich,  his  familiar  friend,  says  he  knew  who  it  was;  Mr. 
Rich  is  mistaken  in  that  according  to  Mr.  Phillips'  testimony.  So,  if  you 
take  the  testimon}-  of  all  the  witnesses,  he  was  so  disguised  that  they  did 
not  recognize  him.  If  the  prisoner  was  able  to  so  completely  disguise  him- 
self, when  he  attempted  it  again  how  could  one  in  the  flickering  moonlight, 
with  only  a  momentarj^  look,  see  through  that  disguise  and  identifj-  the 
man  ?  If  he  disguised  his  voice  so  at  the  concert,  not  only  in  his  declama- 
tion but  in  his  singing,  so  it  could  not  be  recognized,  why  could  he  not  dis- 
guise it  when  he  uttered  a  simple  "hello"  at  the  gate  of  Sim.  Conoley? 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  the  old  grandmother  was  put  on  the  stand 
a  feeling  of  reverence  came  over  all  right-minded  people  in  this  court  house; 
to  see  that  poor  old  woman,  30  years  stricken  with  palsy,  12  years  on  her 
bed,  to  see  how  patientl}'  she  had  borne  it,  and  how  amid  her  suffering  and 
trouble  she  shamed  us  who  had  been  more  fortunate  by  her  patience  and  by 
her  humble  christian  faith,  it  was  almost  a  feeling  ot  reverence  with  which 
we  looked  upon  her.  The  counsel  say  that  they  hope  we  will  not  attack 
Mrs.  Conoley.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  one  word  against  the  honesty  of 
her  evidence,  or  her  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  statements  she  made  on  this 
witness  stand;  that  old  mother  is  sacred  from  the  attack  of  any  human  being 
w^ho  has  within  his  bosom  an  honest  heart.  Soon,  in  the  way  of  nature,  she 
will  be  with  Him  who  has  been  her  Helper  through  many  years,  and  I  be- 
lieve that  she  will  find  that  rest  that  cometh  alone  from  God.  Yet,  gentle- 
men, while  I  believe  this  honestly  and  trulj',  I  as  honestly  and  truly  think 
that  Mrs.  Effie  Conoley  must  be  mistaken.  To  place  her  in  the  house  where  she 
said  she  was  and  where  she  saw  the  party  walking  by  slowly  in  the  moonlight — 
you  have  her  sitting  in  the  house  by  the  fire,  the  murderer  ovit  in  the  moonlight 
and  the  glare  of  the  firelight  between  them.  Now,  you  know  how  that  is,  you 
know  that  in  a  lighted  room  you  cannot  see  well  ovit;  she  says  he  was  taller 
than  Simeon  Conoley.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  overruling  Providence, 
which  I  alluded  to  before,  in  inscrutable  wisdom,  did  something  that  night 
that  should  leave  its  mark  upon  the  prisoner.  All  the  witnesses  that  testi- 
fied about  that  concert  said  that  Daniel  MeDougald,  in  acting  the  part  of 
that  old  negro,  walked  across  the  floor  with  a  hobble.  Old  Mrs.  Conoley 
swears  to  you  that  the  disguised  man  who  walked  across  her  yard  with  Sim- 
eon Conoley  hobbled.  Is  not  that  so?  Can  there  be  any  doubt  about  that, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury?  His  partner  said  he  had  on  the  duster  at  the  con- 
cert; witnesses  testified  to  you  that  they  thought  the  man  who  had  on  the 
duster  was  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar.  Was  the  prisoner  in  much  danger  then 
when  he  got  away  in  the  country  with  his  duster  on,  when  he  could  disguise 
himself  so  completel}'  without  it  that  his  intimate  friends  could  not  tell  who 
it  was?  And,  gentlemen,  if  there  should  come  up  any  trouble  hereafter, 
could  it  not  be  established  that  the  man  who  wore  the  duster  was  another 
man  at  the  concert  ?  Is  not  that  so?  When  all  this  testimony  comes  to  you, 
circumstance  after  circumstance,  following  tip  the  acts  of  MeDougald,  his 
statement  that  he  went  to  Wilmington  on  Tuesday;  that  Millard  Moore  had 
no  reason  to  commit  the  deed;  that  Lum  Johnson  was  at  his  work;  that  it  was  a 
white  man  disguised;  then  the  loss  of  the  clothing;  bis  statement  to  two  or 
three  of  the  witnesses,  that  it  would  be  hard  for  them  to  find  any  clue  to  it, 
and  lastly  his  flight.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  what  have  you  got  to 
unsettle  your  minds  as  to  these  facts  ?  That  the  duster  was  a  white  or  drab 
color  ?  The  testimony  of  his  grandmother  that  the  man  who  passed  through 
that  yard  was  taller  than  Sim.  Conoley,  and  the  counsel  who  last  addressed 
you  says  the  defendant  has  proven  that  he  is  not  guilty;  he  closes  a  five- 
hour's  speech  to  you  with  the  statement  that  the  defendant  is  not  guilty.     If 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  147 

the  defendant  has  proved  that  I  am  glad  of  it.  It  is  for  5-011  to  say.  Since  he 
made  that  statement  I  have  been  thinking,  and  I  can  find  no  point  in  this 
evidence,  no  particle  of  it,  which  shows  that  the  defendant  is  innocent.  We 
have  put  such  testimony  on  as  we  think  must  convince  you  be3ond  a  reas- 
onable doubt  that  the  defendant  is  guilty.  The  counsel  for  the  defense  say 
we  ought  to  have  put  more  on.  We  did  what  we  believed  was  right;  the 
witnesses  were  here,  and  sworn  by  the  counsel  of  State,  the  coun.sel  for  the 
defense  could  have  put  them  on,  they  were  here  in  this  Court;  or  if  our  wit- 
nesses had  been  tampered  w  ith  they  could  have  shown  it.  The  last  counsel 
gravely  asks  3'ou  to  acquit  this  prisoner,  mainly  because  from  the  fact  that 
he  is  not  satisfied  with  the  cour.se  that  the  counsel  for  the  State  have  pur- 
sued in  this  case.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  do  not  believe  that  3'ou  will 
allow  such  expressions,  falling  from  the  lips  of  counsel,  to  teach  3'ou.  Soon 
the  prisoner  will  have  nothing  between  him  and  his  Maker  except  you,  and 
you,  under  the  oath  which  you  have  taken,  are  to  render  a  solemn  verdict 
according  to  the  command  of  the  might3'  Being,  that  "  whosoever  sheddeth 
blood,  by  the  hand  of  man  shall  his  blood  ]ye  shed." 

God  forbid  that  I  should  direct  3'ou  to  do  anything  but  what  is  your 
solemn  duty  in  this  matter.  Vengeance,  if  it  must  come  to  the  murderer  of 
Simeon  Conole3^  will  come  from  him  who  hath  declared  "vengeance  is 
mine,  saith  the  Lord."  We  have  naught  to  do  with  that;  it  matters  not 
what  the  verdict  is  to  be,  before  that  awful  tribunal,  at  the  last  great  da3-, 
whoever  committed  this  deed  must  answer  for  it.  Now,  gentlemen,  what  more 
can  I  sa3-  to  3-ou  ?  You  come  from  a  race  noted  for  honest3' and  courage,  from 
a  people  who  heard  the  thunder  of  the  Almight3' in  the  rushing  clouds  around 
the  granite  peaks  of  old  Caledonia,  from  araceof  people  who  saw  his  smile  and 
his  Pentecost  in  the  sunshine  and  the  flowers,  and  whatever  you  do  3-ou  will 
do  honestly,  justl3%  fairl3'  and  impartiall3^  like  3'our  ancestors  you  shall 
ask  Him  to  guide  3'ou  in  this  matter  before  3-ou.  I  will  join  with  3'our  ver- 
dict; if  the  defendant  has  explained  these  circumstances,  if  he  has  estab- 
lished his  innocence,  as  the  counsel  say,  let  him  go  free;  but,  gentlemen  of 
thejur3-,  in  consideration  of  the  evidence,  the  testimon3',  the  statements  of 
coun.se{,  with  all  the  testimon3'  as  introduced  b3'  the  w-itnesses,  ma3-  God  in 
his  wisdom  and  merc3'  aid  and  help  3'ou  to  decide  between  the  prisoner  and 
the  State  of  North  Carolina. 


John  G.  Shaw— for  the  defense. 

May  it  please  Your  Honor  and  Gevtlemen  of  the  Jury: 

I  am  amazed,   3'es>  gentlemen   of  the  jur3',   I   am 

almost  dum founded  at  the  .scenes  which  have  been 

witnessed  in  this  court  room  for  the  last  ten  da3's.     It 

is  enough  to  bring  wonder  and  amazement  to  the  mind 

of  ever3'  man  when  we  look  around  us,  as  w^e  have  for 

the  last  ten  da3-s,  and  see  gathered  together  men  from 

all  parts  of  North  Carolina,  representing,  I  might  333'  al- 

n:o^t  every  nationalit3',  almost  ever3' creed,  almost  every 

olor,  and  both  sexes,  come  here  at  the  command  of 

the  State  of  North  Carolina  and  at  the  bidding  of  the 

New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  and  for 

what?     To  weave  a  net  and  weld  a  chain,  to  bring 

down  to  an  untimel3'  and  unmerited  grave  the  prisoner 

at  the  Bar.     Some  of  3'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3',  have 

JOHN  G.  SHAW,  ESQ.,    passed  the  meridian  of  life;  some  of  3X)u  ha\e  witnessed 

of  FayettcTiiie,  N.  c.      many  scenes  in  court  rooms;  some  of  30U  are  3'ounger 

and  have  not  had  the  experiences  of  the  others;  but 

though  you  may  have  lived  three  score  years  and  ten,  and  though  3-0x1  may 

live  three  score  3-ears  and  ten  longer,  I  submit  to  3-ou  that  the  time  has  never 

been,  and  the  time,  I  hope,  will  never  come  again,  w-hen  the  court-rooms  of 

North  Carolina  will  be  mvaded  b3'  a  miserable  foreign  corporation,  blood- 


148  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  Me  Doug  aid. 

thirsty  in  its  designs,  as  has  been  the  principal  prosecutor  in  this  cause. 
Not  content,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  with  one  of  the  ablest  prosecutors  in 
North  Carolina,  and  I  submit  that  there  is  no  abler  prosecuting  attorney  in 
the  whole  State  than  the  Solicitor  for  this  District,  that  Company,  blood- 
thirsty^ in  its  designs,  comes  into  this  courtroom  with  its  own  attorney  and 
endeavors  to  stifle  and  trouble  the  minds  of  the  jury  by  persuasion  and  al- 
most by  force.  The  part  that  I  have  been  assigned  in  this  cause  is  a  hard 
one  to  fill.  I  am  following  in  the  wake  of  one  of  the  greatest  men  in  North 
Carolina,  a  man  who  not  only  stands  at  the  very  head  of  the  legal  profession 
in  the  State,  but  a  man  who  has  stood  at  the  head  of  the  North  Carolina 
delegation  in  Congress,  and  whose  voice  has  rung  time  and  again  through 
its  halls.  Following  in  his  wake  I  feel  small  and  insignificant,  but  1  am 
glad  to  know  that  the  gentleman,  for  whom  I  have  the  most  profound  re- 
spect, in  his  argument  before  this  jury,  has  argued  from  a  standpoint  of  jus- 
tice and  fairness,  such  as  some  at  least  of  the  other  counsel  have  not  done. 

There  is  no  counsel  in  this  case,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  with  whom  I  am 
not  on  the  ver^-  best  terms;  but  I  do  say  that  when  counsel  come  into  this 
Court  and  show  as  much  spirit  and  as  much  feeling  as  did  one  of  the  coun- 
sel, and  the  very  counsel  representing  that  Insurance  Company,  it  is  enough 
to  make  any  juror  or  any  respectable  man  turn  with  disgust  from  any  such 
mode  of  prosecution.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  there  sits  a  man  charged  with 
a  terrible  crime,  and  only  through  the  mouths  of  his  counsel  can  he  say  one 
word;  and  I  marked  him  yesterday,  when,  with  flashing  e3^eand  denunciato- 
ry' voice,  the  counsel  almost  rushed  upon  him,  if  possible  to  make  him  .show 
at  least  some  feeling  or  some  guilt  vipon  his  countenance,  and  I  never  in 
my  life  have  felt  any  more  righteous  indignation  than  I  did  when  an  assault, 
as  it  were,  was  made  upon  the  man  under  the  ban  of  the  law.  But  it  is 
done,  the  arm  that  held  the  blade  for  the  Insurance  Company'  has  struck  his 
blow,  and  I<im  glad  to  see  that  twelve  men  still  sit  here,  patiently  listening 
to  what  the  prisoner  has  to  say  in  his  own  defense.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
probably  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  North  Carolina  boasts  to-day  laid  down  the 
priciple  of  law  upon  which  this  prosecution  is  based,  and  it  is  one  of  the  most 
fallacious  and  most  illgrounded  principles  that  I  have  ever  heard.  He  comes 
into  this  Court  and,  after  calling  forth  from  his  soul  pity  at  the  condition  of  the 
prisoner,  he  implores  him  to  lift  the  burden  there  is  upon  him.  Ah,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  these  were  the  words  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  Has 
it  come  to  the  time  when  our  old  mother  can  say  to  one  of  her  sons,  "you  are 
guilty,  prove  your  innocence?  "  I  do  hope  to  God  that  the  day  may  never 
come  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  when  such  will  be  the  case.  Ah,  but, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  they  rushed  at  him  and  declared,  "why  don't  you 
tell  where  j'ou  were?  "  And  then  and  there  the  Judge  presiding  tells  him  to 
stop,  "Stop,  you  are  overstepping  the  bounds  of  the  law,  it  is  for  you  to 
prove  where  he  was  and  not  for  him."  The  State  of  North  Carolina  cannot 
shift  the  responsibility  upon  the  defense  in  this  case.  It  has  made  its  alle- 
gations and  it  must  prove  the  facts.  We  say  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
that  they  have  failed,  miserably  lailed. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  pro.secution  has  laid  down  its  theory  ; 
one  of  the  most  important  points  in  that  theory  is  this,  that  on  the  2tst  day 
of  April  in  the  present  year  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  got  off  the  train  of  the 
Carolina  Central  Railroad  at  Ma.xton  ;  mark  you,  that  he  got  off  at  Maxton  ; 
thev  have  endeavored  to  trace  him  from  the  depot  at  Maxton  to  the  water 
tank  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.  Well  now,  I  say  to  you,  and  I  believe  his 
Honor  will  so  charge  you,  if  they  have  urged  in  proof,  before  the  defendant 
has  answered,  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  did  get  off  at  Maxton,  it  does  not 
lie  in  their  mouth  to  say  that  he  could  have  gone  to  Alma  and  walked  back 
to  Maxton.  There  is  an  old  military  adage — and  it  is  as  old  as  it  is  true — 
which  says  that  it  is  bad  policy  to  .change  front  in  the  presence  of  the 
enemy.  It  does  not  lie  in  their  mouth,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  after  they 
have  put  Cottingham  and  McCormick  on  the  .stand  here  to  swear  solemnly 
that  they  will  tell  the  truth,  and  they  have  said  that  he  stopped  at  Maxton, 
to  say  that  there  was  time  for  him  to  have  gone  on  to  Alma  and  get  back  to 
that  water  tank  in  time  to  have  taken  the  freight  on  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  149 

Righfthere,  gentlemen  of  the  jnrv,  we  have  broken  their  ctiains  asunder; 
we  have  thrown  the  pieces  in  different  directions.  But  they  saj-  that  Mr. 
Phillips — and  I  am  not  going  to  say  much  about  Mr.  Phillips,  ver\^  little 
need  to  be  said  about  him — they  say  that  Mr.  Phillips  saw  him  leave  the 
very  day  that  Mr.  Lockamy  says  he  left.  Where  is  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Phillips  to-day,  gentlemen  ?  It  is  reposing  quietl3%  it  is  resting  in  the  same 
place  that  marks  perjured  Edgar  Gillespie.  I  submit  to  you  that  they  are 
bound  to  prove  that  it  was  none  other  than  the  prisoner  him.self,  and  we 
have  put  to  shame  their  strongest  man,  the  very  man  who  swears  it;  that 
man  comes  back  on  the  stand,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  says  that  he  does 
not  know  what  day  it  was.  Oh,  but  one  of  the  counsel  says  that  there  is  an 
old  colored  woman  whose  testimony  we  have  handled  gingerly  ;  the  Insu- 
rance Companj-  say  that  this  old  colored  woman,  who  had  known  Dan. 
McDougald  so  well,  came  along  there  and  said,  "Danny,  where  are  you 
going?"  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  old  colored  woman  did  not  say  that  ; 
the  Insurance  Company  got  softer  in  its  words  than  did  the  witness.  The 
word  "  Dannie  "  was  not  used.  Now  they  say  that  we  handle  her  testimony 
mighty  gingerly.  I  say  to  you  that  they  handle  Mr.  Philips'  testimony 
mighty  gingerlv,  exceedingly  gingerly.  You  lay  aside  the  testimony'  of 
Mr.  Phillips,  the  only  other  person  that  saw  him,  and  where  is  the  testimony 
of  the  old  woman  gone  to?  But  thej'  sa}',  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  with  all 
the  ingenuity,  with  all  the  array  of  coun.sel  that  this  defendant  has,  that  if 
that  old  woman's  cliaracter  could  have  been  attacked,  it  would  certainly  have 
been  done.  Well.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  there  is  a  single  man  in  this 
court  room,  except  possibly  the  insurance  agent,  that  ever  heard  of  the  old 
woman  before.  I  have  inquired  of  numbers  of  people,  "did  you  ever  hear 
of  her?"  "Never  heard  of  her  before  in  my  life."  I  have  the  right  to 
argue  to  you  from  testimony-  that  the  te,stimony  of  this  old  woman  there  at 
the  water  tank  is  nothing  but  the  production  of  that  man  Daniels'  imagina- 
tion and  money. 

I  understand,  gentlemen,  that  that  important  personage,  of  whom  you 
have  heard  so  much,  IMr.  Daniels,  has  been  here,  or  some  one  of  his  agents, 
that  he  has  beeii  within  this  court-room,  or  within  sight  of  it  during  this 
trial;  if  he  has  I  venture  to  say  that  he  has  taken  his  flight  before  this 
time,  and  I  am  glad  to  know,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  we  are  reported 
here  in  this  court-room  by  one  who  will  publish  not  only  to  the  people  of 
North  Carolina,  but  to  the  world,  the  vice  and  the  villainy  of  this  Insurance 
Company,  so  that  the  people  may  be  no  longer  gulled  and  swindled  by  it. 

•  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  will  ju.st  jump  from  crag  to  crag  and  peak 
to  peak  in  the  evidence.  I  do  not  propose  to  recapitulate  three-fourths  of  the 
evidence  or  even  a  fourth  of  it.  But  the  last  counsel  was  just  a  little  mis- 
taken with  regard  to  the  evidence.  At  one  place  he  sa5's  this  man  was  seen 
getting  off  the  train  at  Shandon.  jNIv  respected  friend  is  mistaken  with  re- 
gard to  the  testimony.  There  is  no  living  man  or  woman,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  has  come  upon  that  stand  and  sworn  that  this  man  with  a  duster 
on  ever  got  off  that  train  at  Shandon.  It  is  only  a  presumption,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  only  a  presumption,  that  after  the  train  had  arrived,  a  few  min- 
utes after  it  arrived,  that  a  man  passed  bj'  the  house  of  this  old  woman, 
Charlotte  Dumas,  wearing  a  duster  and  carrying  something  upon  his  back. 
Now,  you  older  men,  who  have  had  more  experience  in  life  than  I  have,  I 
want  to  ask  you  if  in  3'our  experience  you  know  of  but  one  thing  that  can 
change  its  color  as  often  as  that  duster?  I  believe  that  there  is  a  certain 
species  of  lizzard  that  has  reflected  upon  it  whatever  it  is  crawling  on,  and 
that,  gentlemen  of  the  jurj',  is  the  only  thing  in  the  world  that  this  duster 
can  be  compared  to.  Mr.  Phillips  says  it  was  a  mud-colored  duster,  the 
next  man  said  it  was  white,  another  that  it  was  straw  colored,  and  a  dozen 
different  colors  were  given.  The  man  that  they  locate  as  leaving  Shandon 
and  passing  by  this  old  woman's  house  has  not  got  the  same  sort  of  a  dus- 
ter on  as  the  man  that  they  say  was  on  the  water-tank  on  that  particular 
morning.  Well  then,  if  that  is  so,  if  they  have  not  proved  that  the  man  had 
the  same  kind  of  a  duster,  was  carrN'ing  the  same  package,  what  connection 
has  the  one  with  the  other  at  all  ?  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
there  is  not  the  slightest. 


150  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

Much  has  been  said  to  you  about  the  next  witness,  and  I  am  going  to 
be  very  brief  in  regard  to  this  testimony;  I  am  not  going  to  talk  to  you  as 
long  as  the  rest  have  done.  The  next  witness,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  saw 
the  blackest  man  that  he  ever  laid  eyes  on.  Many  of  you  observed  that  man 
upon  the  stand,  and  he  tells  you  that  the  partj*  that  he  saw  was  so  black 
that  he  glittered,  actually  glittered;  well  that  is  the  man  that  has  sworn  to 
3'ou,  that  when  this  part}'  passed  along  with  the  duster  and  package  on  his 
shoulder,  that  he  discovered  white  spots  upon  his  hand  and  the  back  of  his 
neck.  Right  in  the  same  road,  within  a  hundred  yards  of  the  same  place, 
a  woman  meets  him,  Mrs.  Humphrej^;  she  describes  him  as  being  a  shining 
black  man,  but  she  did  not  see  any  white  on  his  hands  nor  on  the  back  of 
his  neck;  but  she  does  sa3^  and  I  want  you  to  mark  the  contradiction  there 
is  between  one  witness  and  the  other,  she  does  say  that  this  man  had  long 
hair  and  that  he  was  carrjnng  some  sort  of  a  pack  across  his  shouldei". 
Well,  now,  here;  if  a  man  had  as  long  hair  as  Mrs.  Humphrey  describes  that 
he  did,  coming  away  down  on  his  neck,  I  ask  you,  in  the  name  of  Heaven, 
how  in  the  world  could  that  colored  man  have  seen  any  white  on  the  back  of 
his  neck;  almost  identically  in  the  same  place,  not  one  hundred  yards  dif- 
ference between  where  the  two  parties  were,  nevertheless  one  describes  him  as 
having  hair  away  down  on  his  neck,  even  to  his  shoulders,  and  yet  the  next 
witness  sa5'S  that  he  saw  the  back  of  his  neck  and  there  were  white  spots  on  it; 
well,  now,  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  there  is  a  serious  conflict 
of  testimony  here.  It  is  in  evidence  that  these  same  two  witnesses,  Mrs.  Hum- 
phrey and  that  colored  man,  I  have  forgotten  his  name,  testified  once  before 
in  regard  to  this  man  that  passed  up  that  road;  it  was  at  Mill  Prong,  but  I 
will  have  you  to  bear  in  mind  that,  when  a  man  or  a  woman  places  his  or 
her  hand  on  the  Word  of  God  and  takes  a  solemn  oath,  it  matters  not  in 
what  county  or  State,  it  matters  not  in  what  nation  or  clime,  it  will  be  just 
as  binding  in  one  place  as  in  another;  my  friend  Mr.  Neal,  who  is  represent- 
ing the  Insurance  Company,  says  that  Mr.  Shaw  was  over  there  trying  to  fix 
this  crime  upon  Millard  Moore  and  upon  the  man  Kelly.  Now,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  what  under  Heaven  did  Mr.  Shaw  know  about  the  charge  against 
Mr.  MeDougald  at  that  time?  If  there  had  been  any  testimony  at  that  trial 
that  would  have  shown  that  there  were  white  spots  upon  the  hands  and  neck 
of  that  man,  was  it  not  white  men  they  were  trj'ing  on  that  day,  and  would 
not  Mr.  Shaw  have  done  everything  in  his' power  to  have  shown  that  this 
was  a  white  man  disguised?  But  with  all  his  ingenuity  he  was  not  able  to 
elicit  anything  from  those  witnesses  that  the  man  that  passed  up  the  roa^ 
on  that  day  was  a  white  man.  But  after  our  friend  Daniels — I  have  never 
seen  him — representing  one  of  the  richest  corporations  that  there  is  to-daj^  in 
America — and  just  there  I  am  reminded  of  one  thing:  M}^  friend,  Mr.  Neal, 
has  spoken  of  the  prisoner  being  haunted  by  conscience,  that  he  was  driven 
over  the  Rocky  Mountains  into  the  Pacific  Slope,  and  he  was  almost  ready 
to  plunge  into  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  go  clear  across,  conscience  was  driving 
him  from  one  side  of  the  continent  to  the  other.  Well,  I  am  surprised,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  that  a  man  that  is  representing  as  soulless  a  corporation 
as  he  is  can  talk  about  conscience;  for  one  of  the  big  corporations,  who  are 
sucking  the  very  life  blood  out  of  the  people,  they  are  the  very  last  ones 
that  ought  to  say  one  word  about  conscience;  when  Mr.  Neal  speaks  to  you 
it  is  not  Mr.  Neal  speaking,  just  as  when  I  speak,  it  is  not  I  speaking,  but 
Daniel  MeDougald;  so  when  Mr.  Neal  is  speaking,  it  is  not  Mr.  Neal,  it  is 
the  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company. 

One  of  the  evils  of  this  day  and  generation  is  that  the  rich  moneyed 
corporations  are  trying  to  suck  the  life-blood  of  our  country.  Why,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  the  spectacle  is  appalling,  when  you  come  to  consider  that, 
as  I  remarked  a  minute  ago,  we  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  having  a 
prosecuting  attorney  representing  companies  from  New  York  State  in  our 
midst ;  it  is  an  appalling  one  and  ought  to  bring  horror  and  consternation 
to  every  good  man. 

Well,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  has  been  argued  to  you,  and  I  say  it  has 
been  argued  fairly,  that  the  State  has  not  acted  towards  this  jury  as  it  ought 
to  have  done.     It  is  in  testimony,  that  on  the  morning  the  man  passed  up 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  151 

on  the  freight  of  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  Railway,  that  there  were  only  two  other 
passengers  aboard  that  train;  now  you  heard  that  in  testimony — Capt.  Lock- 
amy  testified  to  it;  both  of  those  men  were  summoned  by  the  State  to  this 
trial;  now  mark  it,  the}^  were  both  called  to  the  witness  stand  and  sworn, 
and  they  were  botii  discharged  by  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  Mr.  DeVane 
testified  for  whom?  We  had  to  send  to  Robeson  to  get  him  after  the 
State  discharged  him;  the  other  .was  Mr.  J.  C.  Murchison,  master  of 
trains  on  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V. ;  he  passed  so  far  away  that  we  could  not  get  him 
back  here.  Is  that  fair,  gentlemen  of  the  jury?  Is  it  fair  for  the  State  to 
bring  here  the  only  two  men  who  were  on  board  the  train  that  morning,  and, 
after  having  them  sworn  in  as  State's  witnesses,  to  discharge  them  and  let 
them  fjo  home.  You  heard  what  Mr.  DeVane  swore  to;  you  heard  him 
swear  in  language  plain  and  not  easily  misunderstood  that  the  man  who  was 
on  board  that  train  on  that  morning  was  a  taller  man  than  the  prisoner  at 
the  Bar.  The  State  knew  that  that  was  what  Mr.  DeVane  would  say,  and 
possibly  they  knew  that  is  what  Mr.  Murchison  would  swear  to  if  they  had 
put  him  up,  but  Mr.  Murchison  got  so  far  away  from  us  that  we  could  not 
get  him  back  when  we  found  the  vState  had  discharged  him. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  listen  here  a  little  further:  As  I  said  be- 
fore, I  only  intend  to  touch  the  testimony  here  and  there;  let  us  go  out  to 
the  scene  of  the  murder  that  has  been  so  graphically  described.  I  discov- 
ered during  Col.  Rowland's  remarks  that  there  was  a  death-like  stillness 
over  the  entire  audience;  there  was  the  old  man  ansvyering  a  call  of  charity 
by  a  stranger,  whom  the  coun.sel  says  was  Mr.  ISIcDougald,  and  the  counsel 
pictured  the  scene,  the  man  standing  over  him  and  shooting  him  like  a  dog. 
All  that  is  very  good  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  that  is  not  the  question  we  are 
discussing.  It  is  not  denied  that  there  has  been  a  fiendish  murder  commit- 
ted, but  all  the  eloquence  and  pathos  of  the  counsel  in  describing  that  mur- 
der don't  throw  one  particle  of  light  upon  the  question  of  who  is  the 
murderer.  That  is  the  question  and  onU-  question  for  your  consideration. 
In  describing  who  the  murderer  was  there  is  only  one  witness,  of  i6o  who 
have  been  examined,  that  throws  one  particle  of  light  upon  that  dark  and 
dismal  scene.  There  is  only  one  witness  that  can  tell  5-ou  one  thing  in  re- 
gaid  to  the  nature  or  the  character  of  the  man  who  assassinated  vSimeon 
Conoley.  and  they  tell  \'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  we  have  shown  in- 
justice in  bringing  that  witness  here,  that  we  have  gone  too  far  in  bringing 
an  old  lad}-  stricken  with  palsy  for  thirty  years  and  confined  to  her  bed  for 
twelve  \ears  to  this  place  to  testify.  Ah,  no;  gentlemen  of  the  jur3%  humati 
life  is  at  .stake.  Did  3'ou  hear  it?  Human  life  is  at  stake!  A  valuable  life, 
if  such  lives  are  to  be  found  anywhere,  and  that  old  ladj',  though  she  was 
old,  was  ready  and  willing  to  come  and  tell  in  her  feeble  tones,  in  language 
not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  the  man  was  not  the  defendant.  Ah,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  the  last  counsel  would  not  sa\-  one  thing  against  her  char- 
acter; he  told  }'ou  that  ere  long  she  would  have  taken  her  everlasting  depart- 
ure to  the  future  world,  and  that  he  would  leave  her  without  saying  one 
thing  against  her.     He  did  right. 

When  the  State  of  North  Carolina  called  D.  B.  McLauchlin,  one  of  their 
witnesses,  on  the  stand,  and  he  tried  to  contradict  the  testimony  of  the  old 
women,  if  I  had  been  as  you,  one  of  the  jury,  and  up  to  that  time  had  made 
up  my  mind  to  convict  that  man,  that  would  have  rung  the  death  knell  of. 
their  case.  They  bring  a  man  upon  that  stand  and  produce  a  plot  of  the 
buildings  and  surroundings  and  do  not  dare,  gentlemen  of  the  jur\-,  to  pro- 
duce the  man  that  made  the  plot.  Put  a  witness  on  the  stand  there  to  testi- 
fy in  regard  to  the  surroundings  from  a  plot  which  was  wrong.  Now,  why 
was  it  that  the}'  did  not  put  the  surveyor  on  the  stand  who  made  the  plot,  it 
he  was  a  surveyor,  and  I  do  not  believe  he  was?  No  matter,  they  bring  a 
plot  there,  and  that  plot,  under  cross-examination  by  the  counsel,  is  found  to 
be  as  faLse  as  could  be.  The\'  put  ]\Ir.  D.  B.  McLauchlin  on  the  stand,  and 
yon  would  conclude  from  his  demeanor  and  the  ver}'  tones  of  his  voice  that 
he  was  one  of  these  extremely  bu.sy  bodies,  and  he  with  a  false  plot  in  his 
hand  attempted  to  contradict  the  word  of  that  old  lady.  You  heard  the 
question  that  was  asked  her  in  regard  to  Mr  I).  B.  ^Icl.auclin,  if  she  had  not 


152  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

told  him  so  and  so,  and  you  heard  her  answer,  "no,  no,  that  won't  do, 
stick  to  the  truth."  And  I  am  reminded  right  here  of  one  thing  that  the 
counsel  said  in  regard  to  Col.  French;  the  counsel  said  he  had  inscribed  upon 
his  banner  the  word  "  Victory"  and  went  forth  to  the  battle  as  one  of  the 
soldiers;  that  he  recurned  with  his  banner  down,  returned  crestfallen;  but 
you  remember,  gentlemen  of  the  jur3^  that  Col.  French,  when  Ue  took  the 
stand  to  address  this  jur}',  told  you  that  he  proposed  to  inscribe  upon  his 
banner  the  last  words  of  the  old  lady  to  this  jury,  that  he  proposd  to  inscribe 
upon  his  banner  those  words  of  truthfulness  which  rang  in  the  minds  and  in 
the  ears  of  this  jury,  "  It  won't  do;  stick  to  the  truth."  That  was  his  motto, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  he  returned  covered  with  victory. 

They  saj'  to  you,  or  they  attempted  to  say  to  j^ou  by  these  witnesses, 
that  the  old  ladj^  had  made  a  mistake,  or  that  she  had  wilfully  committed 
perjury;  I  believe  from  the  course  of  nature  that  that  old  Church  at  Antioch 
will  see  another  solemn  assembly  such  as  was  gathered  around  the  open 
grave  of  Simeon  Conoley  in  the  near  future,  the  same  mourners  will  be 
around  a  grave  in  double  habilaments  of  mourning.  That  old  lady,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  in  testifying  to  you,  not  only  saw  Daniel  McDougald  under 
the  ban  of  the  law,  she  not  only  has  seen  the  child  that  she  nurtured  down- 
trodden and  persecuted,  but,  looking  across  the  open  grave,  she  saw 
another  scene,  she  saw — her  mind  was  bright  enough  to  see  it — she 
saw  eternity  in  all  its  joys  and  all  its  horrors.  While  the  life  of 
Daniel  McDougald  may  be  sweet  to  her,  and  while  she  may  be  glad 
to  gather  him  once  more  into  her  old,  palsied,  feeble  arms,  neverthe- 
less a  woman  of  her  life  and  her  character,  a  woman  of  her  faith, 
would  rather  have  life  eternal.  I  argue  to  you  that,  no  matter  how 
strong  the  tie  might  be  that  bound  the  grandson  to  the  erandmother,  and  no 
matter  how  many  tender  kindnesses  he  may  have  bestowed  upon  her  in  her 
age  and  afSiction,  nevertheless,  when  the  test  came  between  the  life  of  Dan- 
iel McDougald  and  the  life  of  her  own  soul,  she  would  have  chosen  the  lat- 
ter. It  is  folly,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  attempt  to  break  down  the  char- 
acter of  Mrs.  EfiBe  Conoley.  Better,  better,  ten  thousand  times  better  would 
it  have  been  for  this  prosecution  to  have  never  asked  Effie  Conoley  a  question 
on  cross-examination.  I  was  struck  with  the  opening  words  of  one  of  the 
counsel  for  the  defendant,  a  young  man,  the  youngest  man  in  this  case; 
when  he  arose  to  address  you  he  told  you  he  was  not  only  here  as  the  Attor- 
ney of  Daniel  McDougald,  but  was  here  as  a  friend  of  the  man. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  old  lady  is  corroborated  by  a  man  known  to 
every  one  of  you,  or  I  will  say  to  many  of  you;  she  is  corroborated  by  as 
good  a  man  as  any  in  Robeson,  and  that  is  Mr.  R.  F.  DeVane.  I  believe,  if 
J.  C.  Murchison  had  been  called  to' the  stand  and  examined,  that  she  would 
have  been  corroborated  b}'  him,  but  he  was  gone,  by  the  permission  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  gone  without  the  defendant's  knowledge  or  consent. 
The  State,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  the  very  outset  of  this  case,  before  this 
jur^'^  was  impannelled,  in  your  hearing,  took  considerable  pains  to  inform 
the  defendant  that  certain  of  the  State's  witnesses  had  been  discharged,  but 
never  was  the  name  of  J.  C.  Murchison  or  of  R.  F.  DeVane  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  witnes,ses  who  were  discharged.  But  they  say,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  why  don't  you  put  Conoley  on  the  stand,  why  don't  you 
call  the  little  boy  Edwin  to  the  stand,  why  don't  you  call  lyizzie  Conoley  to 
the  stand  ?  We  hurl  it  back  with  ten  fold  force  and  ask  the  question  in 
tones  of  thunder:  why  did  not  you  do  it?  If  they  had  wanted  to  have 
thrown  all  the  light  upon  this  murder  possible,  if  they  had  wanted  to  de- 
scribe the  man  who  perpetrated  this  fiendish  crime,  why  did  not  they  do  it? 
The  bare  fact  that  they  have  withheld  from  this  jury  the  testimony  of  the 
Conoley's  argues  strongly  that  they  have  not  dealt  fairly  with  you.  Who  is 
it  that  is  prosecuting  D.  A.  McDougald  ?  Flows  there  one  drop  of  the  blood 
of  Simeon  Conoley  in  the  veins  of  his  persecutors  ?  Turn  where  you  will  and 
see  a  relative  of  the  dead  man,  and  you  see  one  whose  earnest  desire  is  that 
this  man  be  acquitted;  and  who  dares  to  impute  any  improper  or  unright- 
eous motives  to  this  old  man  ?  Why  did  not  you  put  Edwin  on  the  stand  ? 
Why  did  they  not  do  it  ?    We  have  given  them  the  best,  the  very  best  wit- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  153 

ness  in  regard  to  the  transaction;  if  the\f  had  wanted  to  contradict  the  testi- 
mony of  the  old  lady,  why,  some  of  the  parties  present  were  the  proper  ones 
to  do  it. 

Now,  there  is  a  gap  of  about  eighteen  miles  from  the  scene  of  this  mur- 
der to  Maxton;  they  have  got  the  gap,  and  they  have  atlenipted  to  fill  it 
by  the  testimony  oi  one  man,  Edgar  Ciillespie.  If  there  ever  was  a  man  that 
ought  to  be  prosecuted  for  perjury  it  is  that  man.  A  man,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  will  take  money,  and  I  charge  it  upon  that  witness  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  and  according  to  the  connection  of  that  man  Daniels 
with  that  community,  I  charge,  gentlemen  of  the  jur\-,  that  that  man  was 
evidently  a  bought  and  paid  witness.  An}-  man  that  will  take  money  is 
worse  than  a  Judas;  some  one  of  the  counsel  have  referred  to  the  prisoner  at 
the  Bar  as  a  Judas  on  account  of  his  deep  and  profound  love  for  his  uncle; 
but  any  man  or  woman  that  will  go  upon  the  stand  and  let  his  or  her  testi- 
mony be  influenced  by  any  money  whatever  is  nothing  short  of  a  Judas,  a 
murderer  of  the  blackest  and  most  damnable  color.  Have  they  introduced 
a  single  witness  to  prove  the  character  of  their  man  Edgar  Gillespie.-*  They 
have  brought  him  upon  that  stand,  and  they  had  him  to  rehearse  to  this 
jur}'  the  most  important  evidence  that  they  had  against  the  prisoner  at  the 
Bar.  One  of  the  counsel,  my  brother  McLean,  has  remarked  to  j'ou  that  if 
the  testimony  of  Edgar  Gillespie  was  true  that  this  case  would  end  here  and 
now,  and  I  remark  to  3'ou,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  if  the  testimony  of 
Edgar  Gillespie  is  not  true  that  the  ca.se  falls  as  flat  as  it  can  be.  I  do  not 
charge  here  upon  the  State,  and  I  do  not  charge  \X  upon  the  insurance  com- 
pany, that  the}-  knew  the  character  of  Edgar  Gillespie,  but  I  say  to  you, 
with  all  the  money  that  has  been  spent  in  this  cause,  with  all  the  zeal  of  Mr. 
D.  B.  McLauchlin  and  Mr.  Daniels,  who  are  going  hand-in-hand  ransacking 
houses,  and  disturbing  people  in  the  community,  it  looks  to  me  like  they 
ought  to  have  known  something  about  the  character  of  the  men  that  they 
bring  here  to  sweai'  away  an  honorable  man's  life.  If  they  knew,  gentle- 
men of  the  jurv,  about  the  little  paper  that  Mr.  McNair  signed  and  sent  to 
the  oflice  of  the  Carolina  Central  Railwa}-  in  Wilmington;  if  they  have 
traced  up  as  small  a  matter  as  that,  it  looks  like  they  ought  to  have  traced 
up  the  character  of  their  chosen  witness,  Edgar  Gillespie.  Have  yoii,  gen-' 
tlemen  of  the  jury,  have  you  ever  seen  or  heard  of  a  case  in  which  so  much 
pains,  so  much  zeal,  has  been  manifest  in  working  up  the  slightest  incident 
into  a  mountain  of  prejudice  against  the  prisoner. 

There  is  one  thing,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  will  ask  right  here.  Mr. 
McKinnon  testified  that  the  night  of  this  murder  there  was  a  man  came  to 
his  store  near  Campbell's  Bridge  and  called  himself  Mr.  Cole;  that  he  had 
brought  a  raft  of  timber  that  night,  and  he  sold  him  some  crackers.  You 
recollect  it,  do  you  not  .^  They  cross  examined  Mr.  McKinnon  severely 
with  regard  to  when  the  man  came  there,  and  early  the  next  day  whom  does 
the  State  turn  up  but  Mr.  Cole  himself;  while  he  can  prove  that  he  did  not 
leave  the  clothes  there  that  night,  did  you  hear  that  Mr.  Cole  had  another 
man  with  him,  and  when  the  counsel  for  the  defense  asked  if  there  was  any- 
body with  him,  he  answered  "yes."  Now,  gentlemen,  mark  the  shrewdness 
of  the  question  that  was  then  asked  b}'  the  State:  "  but  he  went  back  with 
you,  did  he  not  ?  "  Not  one  word  whether  or  not  that  other  man  had  left  the 
clothes  there;  he  just  went  back  with  him,  but  he  did  not  say  a  single  word 
about  his  partner  leaving  an}-  clothes.  Well,  gentlemen,  if  they  ran  on  such 
small  points  as  that,  why  was  it  that  they  did  not  look  up  the  character 
of  their  witnesses  at  the  same  time  ?  If  we  had  not  attacked  his  character, 
and  if  we  had  not  proved  clearly  to  the  minds  of  this  jury  that  that  witnesis 
had  sworn  to  a  falsehood,  they  would  have  asked  you  to  convict  this  man, 
to  take  his  life  away,  upon  that  testimony.  In  the  light  of  this  testimony, 
I  charge  that  that  man,  Edgar  Gillespie,  wilfully  and  maliciously-lied.  John 
Williams,  whose  character  has  been  proven  to  be  good,  swears  to  you  that 
on  that  night  he,  Gillespie,  was  not  at  home.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  John 
Williams'  character  has  been  proven  good,  and  Edgar  Gillespie's  character 
has  been  proven  as  bad  as  that  of  any  man  that  y6u  ever  heard  attacked  in  a 
court-room.     You  may  have  been  struck  with  one  question  that  was  asked 


154  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

Stephen  McLean,  another  colored  man;  Stephen  McLean  was  called  to  the 
stand  and  a?ked  whether  Edgar  Gillespie  had  made  an}- statements  to  him  or 
not  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Stephen  McLean  ^aid  that  Edgar  Gillespie  told 
him  that  MeDougald  did  come  there,  or  rather  that  there  was  a  man  came 
there,  and  his  wife  waked  him  up.  Notice  that.  Edgar  Gillespie  had  left 
the  stand  the  day  before  and  had  solemnh-  sworn  that  his  wife  was  not  at 
home  that  night.  The  State  thought,  gentlemen  of  the  jur}',  when  we  put 
that  witness  Stephen  on  the  stand,  that  it  had  corroborated  Edgar's  testimo- 
ny, but  we  put  him  on  the  s*^and  to  show  you  that  Edgar  told  a  falsehood. 

Most  of  the  arguments  of  the  State  have  been  made  in  older  to  drive 
you,  and,  if  not,  to  arouse  your  prejudices  or  50ur  passions,— especially  by 
Mr.  Neal.  Mr.  Neal.  in  referring  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  reminded  you 
that  the  prisoner  had  money,  and  that  he  wanted  you  to  understand  that 
there  was  a  law  in  this  country  for  the  aristocrat  as  well  as  forthe  poor  man. 
Is  not  that  one  of  the  most  miserable  arguments  that  }ou  have  ever  heard 
given  to  a  jury  in  vour  life?  Does  Daniel  A.  MeDougald  bear  llie  .stamp  of 
an  aristocrat.  Well,  I  should  think  not;  a  boA'  that  has,  according  to  the 
testimony,  started  frr  m  absolute  poverty  and,  by  hard  licks  and  honest  in- 
tentions, laid  himself  up  a  small  sum  upon  which  he  should  have  been  inde- 
pendent had  not  the  State  brought  this  foul  charge  upon  him.  Talking 
about  aristocracy  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  arouse  the  prejudices  of  this 
jury,  trying  to  make  \'ou  think  that  30U  are  trying  a  millionaire  or  a  capi- 
talist of  some  kind — a  victin]  for  the  benefit  of  the  Mutual  Life  Insurance 
Compan}'  of  New  York.  Again,  what  do  you  think,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
of  a  witness,  and  I  refer  to' Air.  D.  B.  McLauchlin,  what  do  you  think  of  a 
witness  who  will  go  hand  in  hand  with  a  representative  of  this  Insurance 
Company  to  his  neighbor's  house  in  the  night  time,  where  there  is  an  need 
and  infirm  lady,  and  break  open  chests  and  trunks,  and  overturn  the  bed  for 
the  purpose  of  trying  to  work  up  testimony  against  this  prisoner?  Gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  those  men  did  it.  D.  B.  McLauchlin  ought  to  be  indicted 
for  forcible  trespass.  Talking  about  how  Simeon  Conoley  was  murdered  is 
bad,  it  was  a  b  d  crime,  but  I  tell  you,  stepping  in  almost  the  same  steps 
was  D.  B.  McLauchlin  and  this  insurance  agent  when  they  invaded  the 
■premises  of  this  old  lady  on  that  night. 

Well,  there  was  one  thing,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  was  said  by  one 
of  the  attorneys  that  was  unfair.  In  referring  to  the  counsel  who  had  pre- 
ceded him,  my  respected  friend,  Judge  MacRae.  and  my  young  friend,  John  D. 
Shaw,  he  referred  to  them  as  corporation  lawj'ers.  Where  is  the  proof,  gen- 
tlemen, that  either  one  of  these  men  has  ever  appeared  for  a  corporation,  and 
I  take  the  responsibility  and  say  that  they  defy  them  to  show  any  proof, 
that  thej'  ever  appeared  for  a  corporation  trying  to  take  the  life  away  from 
a  man.  They  say  Judge  MacRae  has  not  exactly  managed  the  case  right; 
Judge  MacRae  ought  to  have  brought  you  the  testimony  of  the.se  Conoleys; 
Judge  MacRae,  in  order  to  have  done  justice  to  his  client,  ought  to  have  intro- 
duced these  Conoleys  as  witne.s.ses.  Oh,  well,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  there 
are  a  great  many  of  us,  my  friend  Mr.  Neal  not  excepted,  that  may  well 
hope  that  the  time  will  come  when  we  shall  have  reached  the  judicial  emi- 
nence of  Judge  MacRae,  The  only  corporation  lawyer  here  in  this  Court 
was  Mr.  Neal,  and  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jur^',  that  Mr.  Neal's  de- 
meanor in  prosecuting  this  man  was  not  what  it  .should  have  been.  Did  you 
mark  the  difference  in  the  manner  in  which  Col.  Rowland  and  Mr.  Neal  ad- 
dressed you  ?  Col.  Rowland  was  discharging  his  duty  as  he  thought  would 
be  in  strict  compliance  with  his  conscience,  but  when  he  did  deal  the  blow 
that  he  did  it  struck  him  to  the  heart.  Mr.  Neal  was  terrible  in  his  denun- 
ciations of  the  prisoner,  and  he  was  terrible  in  calling  him  a  red-handed 
murderer  and  assassin .  Don't  call  a  dog  a  sheep  killing  dog  until  you  prove 
it;  don't  call  Daniel  MeDougald  a  murderer  until  you  can  prove  it,  and  don't 
call  him  an  assassin  until  the  Courts  say  that  he  murdered  his  uncle.  In 
order  to  make  his  remarks  more  forcible  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  he 
does  not  say  that  Daniel  MeDougald  murdered  his  uncle,  but  that  Daniel 
MeDougald  murdered  his  mother's  brother,  to  try  to  touch  your  sympathy 
and  thus  more  effectual Iv  deal  his  blows. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  155 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  said  with  regard  to  this  lampblack;  well, 
now,  I  just  want  to  say  one  or  two  words  in  regard  to  it;  I  judge  that  there 
are  men  in  this  jur}'  who  have  had  some  experience  in  the  timber  business; 
I  have,  and  I  know  something  about  it;  any  man  handling  timber  is  going 
to  handle  lampblack;  the  man  that  handled  those  logs  that  passed  down  that 
creek  in  all  probability  handled  that  lampblack  that  night.  What  business, 
if  Daniel  McDougald  is  the  murdeier,  what  business  dil  he  have  with  that 
lam])biack  after  he  had  blacked  himself  near  Shandon  on  that  day?  Why 
did  he  want  to  burden  himself  with  it  all  the  way  around  to  where  he 
v^'ashed,  taking  this  evidence  of  liis  guilt  with  him  wrapped  in  a  Wilming- 
ton J/fj^jr//^^/'/  For  that  lampblack  was  wrapped  in  a  Wilmington  yJ/t'i'- 
senger.  And  had  it  uecn  Daniel  A.  IMcDougald  that  committed  this  crime 
they  would  have  had  that  Afessenger  here,  and  that  paper  would  have  borne 
upon  the  right-hand  corner  the  name  of  Daniel  A.  McDougald.  These  news- 
papers are  dangerous  tnings.  gentlemen  of  the  jury;  if  a  man  wants  to  com- 
mit a  crime,  he  better  not  have  newspapers  lying  around;  they  ;ire  one  of 
the  most  dangerous  things  in  the  world,  because  the  name  of  every  man  that 
tak'^s  a  newspaper  is  on  it,  and  they  all  know  it.  But  what  did  he  want 
with  that  lampblack,  I  ask  you,  after  he  had  blacked  his  face,  after  he  had 
committed  the  murder,  why  did  he  want  to  carrj'  it  on  to  the  point  where 
these  clothes  were  found?  It  is  out  of  reason,  and  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  know  it.  Another  thiuij:  they  have  not  proved  to  you  that  there  is  one 
drop  of  water  between  Shandon  and  the  place  where  this  black  man  was  first 
seen.  Not  a  drop  of  water  on  the  road;  well,  now,  it  would  be  quite  a  diffi- 
cult undertaking  for  a  man  to  black  himself  up  with  lampblack  without  the 
aid  of  water,  it  is  almost  impossible.  And  there  is  something  else  to  which 
I  want  to  call  your  attention.  April  is  not  freezing  weather  by  any  means. 
Mr.  Cottinham,  or  some  of  the  witnesses  who  testified,  said  that  on  that  par- 
ticular daj'  they  all  wore  dusters.  Suppose  one  of  you  had  blacked  your 
face  with  lampblack  and  walked  a  mile  on  an  April  day  with  a  bundle  on 
j-our  back;  what  would  be  the  condition  of  your  face?  If  there  is  one  drop 
of  perspiration  in  you  it  would  have  come  out,  and  your  face  would  not  have 
glittered.  You,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  who  are  used  to  labor,  know  that  to 
be  a  fact,  and  any  man  who  has  ever  walked  on  an  April  day  under  an  April 
sun  knows  that. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  Scripture  in  this  case.  My  friend,  Col. 
Rowland,  indulged  in  it  freely,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  that  he  is  a  Bible  reader, 
I  never  saw  a  good  lawyer  or  a  successful  politician  who  was  not  a  Bible 
reader;  and  now,  I  just  want  to  repeat  you  some  of  his  quotations  from  the 
Bible.  He  goes  back  to  the  Garden  of  Kden,  and  the  first  one  he  takes  is 
Cain;  the.se  are  the  examples,  gentlemen  of  the  jury;  the  next  is  Achan,  and 
the  next  is  Gehazi,  the  servant  of  Elisha,  thatibllowed  after  the  prophet,  and 
another  Bible  incident  that  he  brings  to  your  mind  in  order  to  show  you 
that  a  man  standing  upon  the  pinnacle  of  re- pect ability  can  at  one  bound 
come  down  into  the  depths  of  sin  and  degredation,  but  in  every  one  of  tho.se 
cases  there  was  a  motive.  Achan,  for  instance,  committed  the  crime  because 
he  wanted  the  wedge  of  gold  and  the  Babylonish  garment.  Cain  kills  his 
broMier;  he  had  a  motive:  he  wanted  to  aspire  to  the  position  in  the  affection 
of  his  father  and  his  mother  which  Abel  held — there  was  the  motive.  And 
Col.  McLean  went  way  back  up  yonder  when  Satan  fell.  W^ell,  Satan  had  a 
motive:  he  wanted  to  aspire  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Almighty  himself. 
Coming  on  down  betakes  in  Judas;  he  was  one  of  the  twelve;  but  if  you 
recollect,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Christ  said  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
ginning, Judas  had  a  motive:  he  sold  his  Lord  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 
Every  single  one  of  the  incidents  which  Col.  Rowland  or  Col.  McLean  have 
mentioned,  ever\'  one  of  these  Bible  cha'acters,  had  a  motive  for  what  they 
have  done.  Now,  I  defy  them;  they  can  argue  here  until  the  sun  shall  set 
and  rise  again  tomorrow  morning  and  they  can  never  convince  this  jury 
that  Daniel  A.  McDougald  had  a  motive  to  kill  Simeon  Conoley.  It  has 
been  argued  to  you  and  argued  well  by  the  defendant's  counsel,  in  speaking 
of  the  possible  motive  that  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  could  have  had  in  coui- 
mittting  this  crime,  that  he  was  only  the  son  of  one  of  the  sisters  of  Sim. 


156  7 he  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

Conoley.  Sim.  Conoley  had  two  sisters  and  a  brother.  Daniel  McDoug:ald 
being  the  son  of  Mrs.  McDotigald  here,  and  she  had  four  or  five  children,  he 
is  removed  two  steps  from  Simeon  Conoley,  and  besides  that  there  are  several 
others  standing  on  an  equal  footing  with  him;  besides  that  Simeon  Conoley's 
mother  was  still  alive.  Col.  Rowland  explains  it  to  3'ou.  Just  indulge  me 
and  1  will  repeat  it  to  you.  Here  Col.  Rowland  has  struck  the  motive  at 
last;  I  am  going  to  quote  his  words:  "  If  the  policy  is  paid  Lizzie  Conoley, 
she  could  pay  the  defendant  back  the  amount  of  the  mortgage  on  his  land 
which  had  been  paid  Mr.  Thomson."  It  is  a  good  one,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  is  a  good  motive;  they  talk  to  you  about  a  mortgage  that  the  de- 
fendant had  paid  Mr.  Thom.son.  Did  you  hear  that  they  called  Mr.  Thom- 
son on  the  stand?  Some  of  5-ou  know  him;  thej'  called  him  and  brought 
him  there  upon  that  stand,  and  after  having  brought  him  to  the  stand,  they 
did  not  offer  him  as  a  witness — and  I  think  the  subpoena  will  show  that  they 
had  him  at  Lumberton.  The3'  want  3'ou  to  jump  at  conclusions,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  the}'  w'ant  you  to  convict  this  man  upon  suppositions,  some- 
thing no  sane  man  will  do. 

Well,  now%  that  is  the  motive:  if  Lizzie  Conoley  is  paid  that  policy,  .etc. 
I  ask  you  to  search  3'our  own  mind  and  let  j'our  conscience  answer  the  ques- 
tion, where  is  the  evidence  to  justify  any  such  assertion  as  that?  If  Lizzie 
Conole}'  had  gotten  the  money  she  could  have  paid  this  man  back  his  just 
debt.  Well,  now,  that  is  the  most  fallacious  argument  that  I  have  ever 
heard.  Would  you  convict  a  sheep-killing  dog  upon  such  a  proposition 
as  that?  You  could  not  do  it.  Had  Daniel  A.  MeDougald  wanted  to 
wrong  anybody,  the  testimony  is  that  his  credit  was  as  good,  he  stood 
as  high,  as  any  man  in  Richmond  county,  had  he  desired  to  wrong  any- 
bod}',  how  much  easier  it  would  have  been  for  him  to  have  bought  goods 
to  an  unlimited  amount  and  then  to  have  closed  the  doors  and  defied  his 
creditors.  Have  you  any  idea  that  that  little  place  that  was  described  was 
vi'orth  $5,000,  this  little  place  on  which  Sim.  Conoley  lived?  If  it  was  not 
worth  $5,000  what  did  Daniel  A.  MeDougald  put  himself  to  the  trouble  of 
insuring  this  man's  life  for  $5,000,  paying  that  premium  out  of  his  own 
pocket,  paying  the  sum  of  $239?  Oh,  it  is  far-fetched,  gentlemen,  it  is  the 
most  far-fetched  theory'  that  I  have  ever  listened  to.  They  say  he  had  land, 
and  the  testimonj^  is  that  Sim.  Conoley's  sister,  not  Sim.  Conole5^  made  this 
mortgage;  there  was  not  one  word  that  Sim.  Conoley  gave  it  to  Mr.  Thomp- 
son. Well,  if  that  was  the  case,  if  the  title  of  the  land  had  passed  into  the 
name  of  Daniel  MeDougald,  if  he  owned  the  property,  what  else  in  the  world 
did  he  want  ?  Did  he  want  to  kill  Simeon  Conoley  for  the  purpose  of  get- 
ting something  that  already  belonged  to  him  ?  It  don't  look  like  it,  does 
not  seem  like  it  would  be  probable.  That  is  the  motive.  They  haA'e  proven 
and  proven,  and  searched  all  around,  and  at  last  Col.  Rowland  struck  it. 
Just  state  it  to  yourselves,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  make  what  you  can 
out  of  it. 

I  was  struck,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  with  another  remark  that  one  of 
th^  counsel  made;  after  admonishing  you  with  regard  to  the  nature  and 
sacredness  of  an  oath,  he  wanted  3'ou,  when  3'ou  came  down  from  this  Court 
room  to  render  a  verdict  that  would  meet  the  approbation  of  all  classes  and 
conditions  of  men— rendei  a  verdict  that  everAbody  would  applaud  to  the 
skies.  Well,  3'ou  ma}'  render  fort}'  verdicts  and  3-ou  could  not  do  it  to  save 
5-our  life;  3'ou  take  an3'  great  men  in  this  world  and  there  is  going  to  be  a 
division  of  opinion  existing  between  those  men  unless  the3'  have  heard  the 
testirpon3'  that  3'Ou  have  heard.  I  do  not  care  one  straw  about  what  the 
public  ma3' think  in  regard  to  it;  who  is  on  oath  to-day?  Who  is  trying 
this  case;  is  it  3'OU  or  is  it  the  public?  Public  opinion  can  be  aroused  to 
frenzX'  and  to  passion,  and  would  sweep  sometimes  in  a  might3'  wave  over 
the  head  of  the  most  innocent  and  when  it  rebounds  it  rebounds  with  equal 
fur3'5  I  sa}-  to  30U  that  3'ou  are  upon  3-our  oath  to  tr3'  this  case,  and  it  is 
not  flfecessary  for  an3'  counsel  to  suggest  to  a  jury  of  Cumberland  count3'  citi- 
zens the  nature  and  solemnity  of  an  oath,  and  when  you  have  done  your 
dut3'Jr3'ou  will  have  done  it  as  3'our  conscience  will  dictate,  3'ou  will  have 
done  it  honestl}',  fairly,  squarely.     Alter  the  counsel  commenced  speaking, 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  157 

it  was  exceedingly  hard  to  tell  for  a  while  whether  we  were  trj'ing  a  case  of 
murder  by  shooting  or  a  case  of  murder  by  poisoning,  brinp-ing  in  here  one 
of  the  most  absurd,  and  one  of  the  most  remarkable  propositions  that  I  ever 
heard  in  m\'  life  in  regard  to  a  former  attempt  of  Daniel  A.  McDougald  to 
murder  his  uncle.  Daniel  A.  McDougald  acted  in  regard  to  that  candy  as 
any  sensible  man  in  the  universe  would  have  acted;  if  there  was  poison  in 
that  box  I  say  to  30U  that  the  defendant  did  not  place  it  there,  because  Dr. 
Prince  has  sworn  to  3"ou,  and  he  knows  the  nature  and  solemnity  of  an  oath, 
he  tells  3'ou  that  that  poison  was  down  at  the  bottom  of  the  box.  If  he  had 
made  an  attempt  to  poison  his  uncle,  nothing  short  of  a  maniac  would 
have  adopted  the  course  that  the}-  say  he  adopted  in  regard  to  it  afterwards. 
If  he  had  done  it  the  secret  was  his  own  and  it  was  safe,  it  made  no  difter- 
ence  what  any  man  might  have  said  in  regard  to  it. 

But  they  try  to  break  down  the  testimony' — and  I  am  sorry  they  do  it — ■ 
of  as  honest  a  country  boy  as  I  ever  saw  called  upon  the  stand,  Neill  Cono- 
lej'.  There  is  the  young  man — it  is  true  that  he  has  not  upon  him  the  polish 
of  some  of  us;  it  is  true  that  he  does  not  come  upon  the  stand  clad  in  fine 
garments,  it  is  true  that  he  does  not  bear  the  marks  of  refinement  and  cul- 
ture, but  he  came  bearing  upon  his  countenance  the  impress  of  truth  and 
honest\-.  Did  you  see  him,  during  the  most  severe  cross-examination  that 
I  ever  heard  a  witness  subjected  to  in  this  court-room,  the  victim  being  a 
poor,  ignorant  country  boy.  Did  they  take  any  of  those  gentlemen  from 
Laurinburg,  who  were  well  known,  to  submit  to  such  a  cross-examination? 
Ah,  no,  they  took  Neill  Conoley,  a  poor  boy.  But  throughout  one  of  the 
most  vigorous  cross-examinations  that  I  have  ever  heard  in  a  court-house,  he 
maintained  that  strict  course  of  truth  and  honesty,  and  not  in  a  single  word 
did  he  contradict  himself;  and  he  tells  \'ou  plainly,  in  the  ver}^  best  words 
that  he  could  command,  everything  connected  with  those  clothes  on  that 
particular  night,  and  I  say  to  you  that  if  you  believe  the  testimony  of  Neill 
Conoley,  then  Daniel  A.  AfcDougald  knows  as  much  about  who  took  those 
clothes  as  a  man  in  the  remotest  parts  of  the  earth.  It  has  been  argued  to 
you,  and  argued  to  you  well,  that  the  man  who  concealed  those  clothes  at 
Campbell's  Bridge  on  that  d-Ay  was  the  man  that  followed  like  a  sleuth 
hound  on  the  track  of  Daniel  A.  McDougald  on  that  day;  and  when  dark- 
ness had  spread  itself  over  the  face  of  the  earth  he  went  in  a  clandestine  and 
secret  manner  and  removed  the  clothes  as  he  had  attempted  on  that  morning 
to  do.  Do  you  believe  Neill  Conoley?  If  you  do,  Daniel  A.  McDougald 
knows  no  more  about  those  clothes  than  the  infant  in  its  mother's  arms. 
But  the  cross-examination  was  fearful,  I  say  to  you  that  I  .should  shudder 
to  undergo  it. 

They  say  he  ran  away.  More  Scripture — that  is  from  brother  McLean — ■ 
"  the  wicked  fleeth  when  no  man  pursueth."  Well,  it  was  not  so  in  this 
case.  The  wicked  was  not  fleeing  when  no  man  was  pursuing.  Did  you 
hear  the  testimony- of  Duncan  McBryde?  It  was  unfortunate  for  the  State 
that  that  man  was  ever  introduced  on  this  stand.  He  met  McDougald  and 
told  him  that  Millard  Moore  was  going  to  fasten  this  crime  upon  him,  and  if 
\'ou  knew  Millard  Moore  you  would  know  what  it  meant;  from  the  testimony, 
I  think  I  am  warranted  in  saying  that  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
Cumberland  county,  or  Robeson  or  Richmond,  there  is  not  a  more  dangerous 
man  living  to-day,  a  man  who  has  been  proven  to  have  entered  the  jail  walls 
not  less  than  twelve  times,  a  man  with  all  the  shrewdness  and  cunningof  a  de- 
mon. Can  j-ou  imagine  the  feelings  of  the  defendant  when  these  words  rang 
in  his  ears?  It  Millard  Moore  should  make  a  threat  against  me,  I  should 
watch  him  with  the  closest  scrutiny,  because  there  is  no  man  living  to-day 
whose  threats  I  should  fear  an}'  more. 

Did  you  hear  what  they  sa}-  in  regard  to  Maxton,  the  very  hot-bed  of 
prosecution  against  this  man  ?  The  counsel  stated  that  Robeson  county  is 
not  prosecuting,  but  Alaxton.  Did  you  hear  those  threats  of  violence  ?  Is 
there  a  man  on  the  jurv  with  boldness  and  fearlessness  enough,  with  a  knowl- 
edge of  these  threats  ringing  in  his  ears,  that  could  stand  the  fire,  I  do  not 
care  how  innocent  you  are  ?    That  was  the  case,  and  in  order  to  put  the  fuel 


158  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

on  the  flame,  a  man  who  did  not  know  that  he  was  inflicting  a  blow,  I  have 
no  doubt  as  good  a  man  as  there  is  in  Nonh  Carolina,  the  Rev.  J.  T.  Lyon, 
did  so  when  he  asked  him  where  he  was  running  away  to. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  heard  everything  that  he  says  in 
regard  to  his  flight.  I  will  lorbear  to  make  any  disparaging  remarks  about 
my  friend  Col.  McRae,  but  Col.  McRae  has  opened  the  way  for  the  New 
York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company;  Col.  McRae  was  the  first  man  that 
put  the  sleuth-hounds  upon  the  track  of  Daniel  MeDougald  by  offering  a 
reward  for  him.  Col.  McRae  was  the  man  that  went  as  an  underbailift'td 
the  State  of  Oregon  for  this  man;  Col.  McRae,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  occu- 
p\-ing  the  position  that  he  occupies  as  an  asj^ent  for  this  Company  that  is 
prosecuting  him,  ought  never,  no,  before  Heaven,  he  ought  never  to  have 
tried  to  draw  from  him  confessions,  or  an)'  words  that  would  be  used  against 
him.  Ah,  no.  Col.  McRae  ought  not  to  have  done  it.  But  what  did  he 
get?  What  did  he  get  throughout  a  ride  of  3,700  miles,  as  he  describes  to 
you  over  the  RocKy  Mountains  and  through  the  Cascades?  What  did  he 
get?  Adopting  exactly'  the  same  line  that  the  prosecution  is  adopting.  Col. 
ilcRae  said  to  him,  "if  you  will  just  say  where  you  were  that  night  it  will 
be  all  right;"  and  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  said,  "it  might  give  me  considera- 
ble difficulty;"  and  they  bring  Col.  McRae  in  here  to  prove  that;  does  not 
that  look,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  like  they  are  going  a  little  too  far  in  this 
prosecution  ? 

But  I  was  talking  to  5-ou  about  Moore  a  minute  ago;  I  was  talking 
about  Millard  F.  Moore,  the  man  -who  has  been  the  bosom  friend  and 
gone  hand  in-hand  with  this  man  Daniels;  the  man  who  was  with  him,  as  I 
recollect  the  testimony,  together  v^-ith  D.  B.  McLauchlin;  and  so  the  man 
must  be,  as  I  charge,  gentlemen,  as  I  believe  the  testimony  will  warrant  me 
in  charging,  that  that  man  Moore  was  one  of  the  underlings  of  this  Insu- 
rance Company  to  gather  this  man  Daniels  evidence  for  the  prosecution. 
Moore,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  was  on  hand  when  some  of  this  work  was  be- 
ing done;  Moore  was  the  man  to  gather,  with  D  B.  McLauchlin  as  supervi- 
sor, evidence  for  Daniels.  Moore  was  the  man  who  shot  from  ambush  a  poor, 
unoff'ending  negro  within  a  hundred  yards  of  Simeon  Conoley's  house. 
They  say  to  you  that  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  attempted  to  fasten  this  thing 
on  Millard  F.  Moore;  they  further  say  to  5'ou  that  he  wanted  to  lynch  him 
under  the  impression  that  his  grandmother  was  frightened  nearly  to  death — 
and  that  only  shows  the  care  that  he  had  for  the  old  lady — he  wrote  the  note, 
but  is  there  a  scintilla  of  proof  that  the  prisoner  was  at  the  house  of  McBryde 
at  all  ?  Did  he  swear  out  a  single  warrant  against  Millard  F.  Moore  or 
against  John  Kelly,  and  did  the  prisoner  take  any  part  in  that  prosecution  ? 
Not  a  bit.  But  they  say  he  ought  to  have  done  it;  they  blow  hot  and  they 
blow  cold  in  one  breath;  they  say  if  he  did  not  swear  out  a  warrant  he  ought 
to  have  done  it.  The  testimony  is  that  Mr.  M.  A.  MeDougald,  the  brother- 
in-law  of  the  deceased,  swore  out  the  one  and  Mr.  John  Conole)',  the  brother 
of  the  decased,  swore  out  the  other;  and  Mr.  M.  A.  MeDougald  employed 
John  D.  Shaw,  Jr.,  to  prosecute  these  parties.  What  connection  has  the 
defendant.  D.  A.  MeDougald,  with  the  prosecution?  None  at  all;  just  as 
much,  though,  as  he  has  with  the  murder. 

Now,  the  testimonv  is  broken  all  to  pieces;  it  is  broken  at  Maxton  at 
the  water  tank,  it  is  broken  at  Shandon,  it  is  broken  at  the  house,  it  is 
broken  at  the  house  of  this  man  who  says  that  the  prisoner  came  there 
to  wash  next  morning.  I  sav  that  every  allegation  they  bring  out,  upon 
which  they  ask  you  to  convict  this  prisoner,  has  been  refuted  and  success- 
fully refuted.  They  insinuate,  while  they  dare  not  proclaim  it  to  you,  they 
insinuate  that  Dugald  McNair  has  not  probably  told  the  truth;  while  they 
dare  not  say  so  plaiply,  it  is  insinuated,  and  I  say  to  you  that  insinuations 
areexceedingly  dangerous  things  to  convict  a  man  upon.  Now  why  do  I  say 
they  insinuate?  Because  they  went  to  the  extremity  of  sending  down  and 
getting  the  railroad  officers  of  the  Carolina  Central  to  have  a  little  strip  of 
paper,  the  report  of  that  conductor  copied,  which  showed  that  no  passengers 
went  from  Laurinburg  to  Alma  with  him;  they  thought,  just  let  him  come 
up  and  swear  that  he  carried  him  down  to  Alma,  let  him  come  if  he  dares; 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  159 

but  when  he  comes  upon  the  stand  he  surprises  them;  he  tells  5'ou,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  and  he  tellst  you  frankly,  that  owing  to  the  friendship  ex- 
isting between  them— that  is  Capt.  McNair  and  the  prisoner — on  tht  morn- 
ing of  the  2ist  day  of  April  he  allowed  Daniel  McDougald  to  pass  free  to  the 
town  of  Alma.  VVell,  I  expect  if  we  hid  stopped  right  there  that  they  would 
have  said  that  he  did  not  tell  the  truth;  we  did  not  stop,  we  brought  the 
most  intelligent  colored  man  that  has  been  upon  the  witness  stand  through 
this  whole  trial,  and  he  corroborates  him,  every  word  that  Dougald  McNair 
has  told  you  he  recollected  distinctly,  and  he  swears  positively  and  emphat- 
ically to  you  that,  on  the  mornir.g  of  the  2tst  of  April,  instead  of  stopping 
at  the  town  of  IMaxton.  the  prisoner  went  on  to  Alma;  so  they  have  different 
testimony  in  every  respect,  Mr.  Cottiigham  and  Mr.  McCormick  contradic- 
ted bv  the  testimony  of  Capt.  McNair  and  his  switchman,  Horace  Smith 

Now,  as  the  counsel  who  preceded  me  has  told  you,  if  it  had  been  a  civil 
action,  why  then  his  Honor  would  charge  the  jur}-  that  the  burden  of  proof 
was  on  the  Plaintiff,  and  he  must  convince  von  by  preponderance  of  testi- 
mony that  this  man  did  stop  at  Maxton  on  that  morning.  But  this  is  dif- 
ferent; humin  eyes  and  human  ears  are  apt  to  see  and  hear  things  and  think 
they  are  certain  when  they  mav  be  entirely  mistaken;  and  .so  much  care  and 
so  much  precaution  does  North  Carolina  throw  around  its  citizens  that  it 
declares  that  the  life  of  n(>  man  shall  be  forfeited  upon  the  gallows  until  the 
State  has  convinced  a  jury  beyond  a  rea.sonable  doubt  as  to  his  guilt.  The 
State  of  North  Carolina  must  prove  to  you  the  allegations  u]ion  which  they 
rely;  the}- must  prove  that  this  man  stopped  at  ]\Iaxton,  they  must  prove 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  was  at  the  water  tank;  they  m'ust  prove 
to  you  bevond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  blacked  his  face  in  a  little  skirt  of 
woods;  if  upon  a  single  one  of  those  particulars  your  mind  is  in  uncertainty 
and  doubt,  if  you  lay  any  stress  upon  j'our  conscience,  you  are  bound  to  re- 
turn a  verdict  of  "  not  guilty." 

I  have  talked  longer  than  I  have  intended  to  do.  As  I  remarked  to  you  at 
the  outset,  I  was  jnst  passing  along  here  atid  there  on  the  testimony.  On 
Mojiday  morning  the  Commander  in  Chief  of  the  defen.se  will  close  these 
arguments.  I  have  about  said  to  3'ou,  gentlemen,  all  that  I  am  going  to  say 
in  behalf  of  the  life  of  this  man.  Daniel  McDougald  is  a  stranger  to  me 
and  to  you,  but  he  comes  to  Cumberland  and  places — what?  His  property.-* 
no,  his  life  in  yourliands.  The  State  of  North  Carolina  has  offered  more  than 
one  hundred  men,  as  good  men  as  are  in  the  country;  Daniel  A.  McDougald 
has  chosen  you  and  puts  his  life  in  your  hands;  and  as  the  last  coun.sel  re- 
marked, just  before  taking  his  seat,  in  a  short  time  all  that  will  stand  be- 
tween him — the  only  breakwater  between  him  and  eternit}' — will  be  this 
jur}'.  They  may  talk  to  you  about  its  being  nothing  but  the  law;  ah,  there 
is  something  more  than  that:  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  a  dutv  to 
perlorm,  and  it  is  a  duty  for  which  j'ou  have  got  to  answer  at  the  Bar  of 
Almighty  God,  that  is  to  give  this  man  the  benefit  of  his  defense  in  toto. 

And  ihey  have  something  to  say  about  Judge  MacRae's  not  saying 
whether  he  thought  the  prisoner  guilty  or  innocent.  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  from  the  very  bottom  of  my  heart,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  you 
would  think  that  I  would  tell  you  a  falsehood  willingly,  but  from  the  very 
bottom  of  my  heart  I  do  not  believe  that  Daniel  A.  ^IcDougald  is  .guilty  of 
this  crime;  if  Daniel  A.  McDougald  committed  that  crime,  there  has  never 
been  another  such  a  man  born;  the  story  that  one  of  the  counsel  alluded  to, 
Dr.  Jekell  and  Mr.  Hyde,  would  be  nothing  compared  to  Daniel  McDougald. 
You  may  .search  the  pages  of  fiction,  you  \\\Ay  go  almost  into  Holy  Writ, 
and  you  cannot  find  the  history  of  such  another  character  recorded.  Think 
of  it,  gentlemen  ol  the  jurj',  that  a  man  said  to  be  as  intelligent  a  man 
probably  as  any  in  the  county  of  Richmond,  think  of  it,  that  in  the  broad 
open  sunlight  of  Heaven — and  I  am  not  going  to  wax  elequent  over  sunlight 
or  moonlight — but  he,  in  the  broad  open  sunlight,  would  leave  his  home  in 
the  town  of  Lanrinbnrg,  go  to  Maxton,  walk  up  to  the  water-tank,  tell  his 
name,  get  on  the  train,  go  to  Shandon,  get  off  there  and  start  in  the  direc- 
tion in  which  Conoley  lived,  go  out  and  black  his  face,  quit  the  road,  then 
go  on  to  the  house  to  commit  this  crime,  and  then,  more  than  that,  the  next 


160  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

morning,  go  to  a  negro  man's  house  that  knew  him  and  wash  his  face  there, 
then  walk  into  the  town  of  Maxton,  a  thickly  populated  town,  after  the  sun 
had  risen,  and  it  must  have  been  considerably  after,  because  that  house  must 
be  four  miles  from  there,  and  in  the  broad  open  daylight  not  a  single  man 
saw  hira  until  he  was  standing  on  the  platform  of  the  depot;  if  Daniel  A. 
McDougald  had  walked  those  streets  that  morning,  if  he  had  gone  down  the 
road  from  Conoley's  probably  there  would  have  been  dozens  and  dozens  of 
persons  who  would  have  seen  him  and  would  have  come  here  before  you  in 
this  Court  House  during  this  trial  testifying  to  that  fact.  I  say,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  that  the  proposition  is  an  absurd  one,  it  is  one  that  no  one  ever 
heard  before. 

There  is  one  other  thing  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  Daniel  A.  Mc- 
Dougald desired  to  kill  his  uncle,  the  testimony  is  that  he  only  lived  about 
i8  or  20  miles  from  the  scene  of  the  murder;  if  he  wanted  to  kill  him 
would  it  not  have  been  much  easier,  would  it  not  have  been  in  keeping  with 
the  acts  of  an  intelligent  man  to  have  mounted  a  horse  after  the  shades  of 
night  had  fallen  and  ridden  there,  and  slain  old  man  Sim.  Conoley  and 
been  back  in  Laurinburg before  daylight  next  morning,  instead  of  making  a 
public  exhibition  of  himself  I  say,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  the  theory 
is  impracticable,  that  it  is  extremely  improbable. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  Major  Shaw  shall  have  ended  his  ar- 
gument this  defendant  will  have  said  all  he  can  say.  The  judge  on  the 
Bench  will  give  you  the  law,  then  you  will  have  in  your  hands,  to  play  with, 
as  it  were  with  a  ball,  the  life  of  the  defendant;  if  you  want  to  hang  him  you 
can  do  it;  from  that  there  is  no  appeal;  we  can  appeal  if  his  Honor  has  not 
done  fairly,  but  if  you  say  Daniel  McDougald  is  guilty  it  carries  him  to  a 
felon's  grave,  it  smirches  forever  and  eternally  one  of  the  fairest  names  that 
Richmond  county  can  boast:  it  clothes  in  double  habilaments  of  mourning 
his  family.  I  will  not  tr}'  to  awaken  your  sympathy  or  arouse  your  preju- 
dices, but  one  remark  in  the  close  of  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Conoley  had  a 
great  deal  of  pathos  in  it;  she  said:  "he  gave  me  many  things  that  I  needed." 
That  carried  with  it,  gentlemen,  more  than  human  words  can  express; 
that  carried  with  it  all  that  is  meant  by  a  strong,  stout,  stalwart  young  man 
standing  as  a  breakwater  between  the  old  lady  and  want;  one  protector  is 
gone,  gentlemen  of  the  jurj^;  in  the  light  of  this  evidence  are  you  going  to 
remove  the  other,  are  3-011  going  to  wound  the  heart  th^t  has  already  been 
wrung  with  hundreds  of  sorrows?  Because  it  seems  that  her  life  has  been 
under  some  sort  of  an  ill-fated  star;  it  does  seem  so,  gentlemen  of  the  jury; 
and  you  know,  when  she  was  telling  you  about  this  conversation  with  this 
officer  that  went  there  and  sat  down  beside  her,  she  told  him  that  almost 
from  her  girlhood  the  measure  of  her  affliction  and  sorrow  had  been  full  to 
overflowing;  her  son, .but  a  da}'  or  two  beforehand,  had  been  struck  down 
without  a  moment's  notice;  now  will  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  hearing 
m}'  last  words  to  you  in  behalf  of  that  man's  life,  and  it  is  the  first  time  that 
I  ever  plead  with  a  jury  for  a  man's  life,  will  3'ou,  in  the  light  of  this  testi- 
mony', drive  another  dagger  to  the  hearts  of  these  old  ladies  and  of  the 
father?  Will  3'ou  take  from  that  mother  her  first-born  son,  or  will  you  say 
what  I  believe  your  consciences  will  demand  that  you  say  to  this  prosecu- 
tion, that  they  have  failed  utterly  to  prove  guilty  D.  A.  McDougald. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  a  serious  matter;  take  his  life  if  you  want  it,  but  I  will 
make  the  prediction  that  sooner  or  later — send  him  to  the  gallows,  let  him 
fill  a  felon's  grave  if  you  will — but  I  make  the  prediction  that  sooner  or  later 
the  true  murderer  of  Simeon  Conoley  will  be  discovered.  Instances  upon 
instances  are  recorded  in  the  law  books.  I  could  turn  and  show  j-ou  hun- 
dreds of  them  where  men  have  been  convicted  on  much  stronger  testimony 
than  this,  and  died  and  been  buried,  and  afterwards  it  was  discovered  that 
the  jury  had  made  a  fearful  mistake.  I  say  the  books  are  filled  with  them. 
It  has  not  been  long  since  I  read  an  account  of  where  an  old  man  was  exe- 
cuted, and  in  less  than  ten  days  afterwards  the  murderer  was  discovered. 
It  would  fill  us  with  horror  if  Daniel  McDougald  should  be  led  by  Sheriff 
Smith  to  the  scaffold  and  it  was  discovered  afterwards  that  he  was  not  the 
murderer.  You  have  the  power  to  acquit  him  and  the  evidence  justifies  you 
in  acquitting  him. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  161 

Much  has  been  said  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  regard  to  that  mos^' 
terrible  scene  in  history,  when  the  people,  with  all  their  blood-thirsty  detenni-. 
nation,  gathered  around  the  hall  of  justice  and  cried  out  "crucify  him!  His 
blood  be  on  us  and  our  children."  But  oh,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  this 
man's  blood  is  spilt  it  will  not  be  upon  ihe  Insurance  Company  that  the  re- 
sponsibility will  re.st.  If  this  blood  is  spilt  that  soulless  corporation  will 
have  nothing  to  answer  for,  because  it  is  nothing,  but  upon  each  of  jw/  ju- 
rors, you  men  of  consciences,  you  men  of  souls,  men  of  responsibilities,  will 
the  burden  rest.  Do  your  duty  if  the  Heavens  should  fall,  do  it  honestly,, 
fairly,  conscientiously.  Do  it  and  all  will  be  well  with  you,  all  will  be  well 
with  the  prisoner. 


John  D.  Shaw,  Sr.-for  the  defense.  ^ 

Afay  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gentlemen  of  the  fury  :• 

\  do  not  come  here  before  you  this  morning  in  the; 

vain  hope  of  making  any  oratorical  display,  and  with, 

still    less   hope   of  using   rounded   periods   and   well,' 

fornied  sentences  that  may   glide  smoothly  into  the. 

reporter's  book,  but  I  come  here  in  my  plain  way  tOj 

plead  for  the  life  of  my  neighbor   boy,    that   I   have 

known  and  loved  ever  since  he  was  a  little  child,  to; 

ask  you  in  the  light  of  this  evidence  to  help  me  snatch^ 

him  from  the  toils  woven  around  him  by  the  purchased 

testimony  of  this  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance' 

Company,  and  to  aid  me  to  hand  him  back  to  his  old 

gray-haired  father  and  brokenhearted  mother.     \Vhen| 

I  come  here,   I  encounter  the  most  unfair,  the  most 

blood-thirsty,  prosecution  that  has  ever  been  known, 

MAj.  JOHN  0.  SHAW,    in  North  Carolina;  I  find  here,  running  through  all 

of  Rockiughaia,  N.  c.      this  case,  the  devices  and  machinations  of  this  infer->' 

nal  Insurance  Company,  this  Compan)-  whose  Attor-' 

ney  here  tells  you  that  he  has  no  apology  to  make  for  his  appearing;  well,, 

he  may  try  until  the  day  of  his  death  to  make  you  an  ample  apology  and  hei 

could  not  do  it;  you  and  I  and  every  man  in  this  country  has  felt  and  do  feel, 

the  power  of  these  moneyed  corporations  of  the  North.     This  country  to  day; 

is  shaken  from  centre  to  circumference  by  this  moneyed  power.    In  a  day  they 

say  to  you,  cotton  shall  not  exceed  6-'/  cents,  and  there  it  stays  till  your  ne-r 

cessities  force  you  to  sell,  then  they  congregate  and  say  it  must  go  to  i6^ 

cents  in  order  that  millions  more  may  be  added  to  our  millions.     They  say^ 

that,  for  the  successful  enrichment  of  these  corporations,  the  poor  must  be 

made  poorer,  and  the  rich  richer.     That  is  history  ever\-  day. 

But  in  this  case  they  sa\\  Daniel  McDougald's  life  must  be  sacrificed  in, 
order  to  save  that  $5,000.  Mr.  Neal  will  not  feel  called  upon  to  make  an  apol- 
ogy, but  I  tell  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  the  criminal  law  of  North, 
Carolina  is  administered  or  represented  to  be  administered  by  such  power  as' 
this  somebody  ought  to  apologize  for  it.  Whether  he  has  a  legal  and  lawful 
right  to  appear  here  or  not  I  do  not  inquire,  but  I  do  saj-  that  it  is  dangerous,  it. 
is  dangerous  when  30U  let  the  moneyed  power  of  the  North  come  here  to  ad- 
minister the  criminal  law  of  this  State  in  your  open  Court.  Your  life,  your, 
property,  is  not  safe  when  their  money  can  purchase  testimoii}'.  ]\Ir.  Neal, 
or  somebody  else,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  here  shouM  apologize  to  this  jury, 
for  Edgar  Gillespie,  Mr.  Neal  or  some  one  should  apologize  to  this  jury  for, 
the  false  swearing  of  McLauchlin,  and  some  one,  gentlemen,  should  excuse 
the  conduct  of  their  witness  McRae.  I  do  not  want  to  call  his  first  name,  and 
I  hope  that,  if  in  the  heat  of  this  di.scussion.  I  should  call  his  first  name, 
that  the  fair  reporter,  whose  bright  face,  amid  all  the  gloom  and  sorrow  o^ 
this  sad  trial,  has  been  like  a  ray  of  sunlight,  will  not  put  his  fiist  name 
down  in  her  notes.     I  do  not  want  his  infamy  known  to  his  relatives  and' 


162  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDoiigald. 

acquaintances.  The  first  step  in  this  case,  in  this  drama,  being  enacted  by 
this  Insurance  Company,  is  what  ?  This  man  McRae,  the  agent  of  the  Com- 
pany, also  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  County  Commissioners  of  Robeson 
County,  abuses  his  official  trust  and  aids  in  offering  a  reward  for  this  man, 
and  he  did  not  possess  the  legal  right  to  use  the  funds  of  the  county  of  Robe- 
son in  any  such  manner.  The  Board  of  County  Commissioners  possessed 
no  civil  powers  whatever,  and  nobody  knew  it  better  than  McRae.  What 
next?  We  find  him  sneaking  to  a  justice  of  the  peace  to  swear  out  a  war- 
rant against  this  prisoner,  so  that  he  might  put  the  sleuth-hounds  and  lynx- 
eyed  detectives  of  this  Company  after  this  man.  What  next  ?  In  order  that 
he  might  ingratiate  himself  in  the  favor  of  this  corporation  and  secure  all 
the  premiums,  he  is  subpoenaed  as  a  witness;  now,  having  become  a  witness 
in  this  case,  he  is  ready  to  do  their  work,  and  when  this  unfortunate  man 
is  arrested  the  first  man  to  start  is  McRae,  and  when  asked  for  the  distance, 
3,700  miles,  he  rolls  it  under  his  slimy  tongue  like  a  sweet  morsel,  thinking 
to  further  prejudice  against  this  poor  unfortunate  man.  What  next? 
When  he  reaches  him  he  expresses  S3mpathy  and  regret,  and  endeavors  to 
obtain  the  confidence  of  this  man  in  his  charge;  he  is  a  member  of  the 
church  with  him,  he  has  claimed  to  be  his  friend.  And  on  his  way 
home,  on  his  way  home,  did  he  talk  to  j'ou,  Mr.  McRae.  between  the  Cas- 
cades and  the  AUeghanies?  Yes.  gentlenien,  when  the  load  of  living  freight 
was  moving  over  the  majestic  hills  and  mountains  between  the  Cascades  and 
the  AUeghanies,  and  every  soul  on  board  was  looking  up  through  nature's 
beauty  to  nature's  God,  where  do  you  find  this  vampire?  endeavoring  to  in- 
gratiate himself  into  the  confidence  of  his  prisoner;  and  when  this  mighty 
train  was  going  upon  the  slopes  of  the  AUeghanies,  and  every  man  in  this 
train,  calmed  and  subdued  by  the  magnificent  scenery  through  which  he 
passed,  seeing  the  hand  of  God  in  it  all,  had  retired  to  peaceful  sleep,  with 
conscience  void  of  offence  against  God  and  man,  where  is  this  Judas?  When 
even  Sheriff  Pi ttman,  the  ofiicer  that  went  for  him,  was  wrapped  in  sleep, 
there  we  find  this  Judas  alone,  in  the  dead  watches  of  the  night,  trying  to 
pull  something  out  of  this  prisoner  that  might  perjure  him.  Gentlemen,  if 
there  i.=  anything  mean,  low,  cowardly,  it  is  for  a  man  in  authoritv  to  take 
advantage  of  a  man  in  his  power.  What  would  you  think  if  Sheriff  Smith, 
big-hearted  Jim  Smith,  .should  come  here  and  tell  you  that  he  had  been  en- 
deavoring to  inveigle  some  confession  out  of  the  prisoner?  Never,  never 
would  he  do  it,  manly  man  that  he  is;  and  here,  and  now.  I  want  to  thank 
him  for  the  kind  manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  his  unpleasant  duty  to 
this  poor  boy.  No  shackle  has  clanked  upon  his  limbs  in  the  hands  of  brave 
Jim  Smith. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  man  pursued  with  more  relentless  fury  ?  Why,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  there  was  never  a  red-mouthed  hyena  that  crept  through 
the  jungles  of  Africa,  that  pursued  its  prey  with  more  brutal  ferocitv  than 
has  the  Insurance  Company  tracked  and  followed  this  poor  unfortunate  boy, 
and  with  all  McRae's  services  for  his  master,  .showing  the  feelings  of  the 
man  that  governed  him  in  this  case,  when  asked  if  he  could  swear  what 
name  he  went  under  there,  and  it  was  objected  to,  unless  he  could  tell  what 
the  prisoner  said  to  him.  said  he.  "I  cannot  swear  to  it,  but  I  have  an  im- 
pression that  it  was  McLauren."  Believe  him?  Believe  him  under  such 
circumstances  as  that?  I  leave  it  with  you.  if  3'ou  can  ju.stify  any  such  con- 
duct, any  such  low,  mean  and  cowardly  conduct.  If  you  believe  the  man, 
you  are  more  credulous  than  I  think  you  are. 

This  trial,  gentlemen,  has  been  unfair  from  its  inception.  Mv  friends 
McLean  and  Rowland,  men,  gentlemen,  th^t  I  esteem,  did  you  see  how  they 
abhorred  the  thought  that  you  should  think  that  they  had  any  connection 
with  this  miserable  Company?  We  have  got  nothing  to  do  with  it;  we 
would  not  touch  it,  we  would  not  appear  for  it.  we  would  prosecute  no 
man  for  it.  I  was  glad  to  hear  that,  and  I  thought  that  they  would  be 
equally'  frank  in  the  balance  of  their  argument.  Not  so.  Even  these  good 
men.  gentlemen,  could  not  keep  up  that  spirit  of  fairness;  I  was  sorry  to 
hear  them  say  that  they  represented  the  people  of  Robeson  count}'  from 
whence  they  came,  endeavoring  to  leave  the  impression,  I  do  not  say  inten- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  163 

tionall3\  but  leaving  the  impression  upon  this  jury  that  the  people  of  Robe- 
son county,  or  some  considerable  portion  of  the  people  of  Robeson  county 
had  employed  these  men.  Now,  I  am  authorized  to  say  what  I  am  going  to 
sa}',  because  it  is  the  truth,  although  it  was  not  proved  before  you,  and  I 
have  the  same  right  to  make  the  statement  ihat  they  did  to  tell  you  that 
they  represented  the  people  of  Robeson  county.  When  this  cnse  first  came 
up,  and  the  prisoner  was  required  to  plead  to  the  indictment,  I  demanded  to 
know  who  they  represented;  they  did  not  want  to  tell  me,  but  they  did  tell, 
and  when  they  said  it,  they  said  they  represented  two  men  in  Robeson  county, 
neither  of  whom  was  kin  to  Sim.  Conoley,  strangers  and  unknown.  In  this 
county,  in  years  back,  the  avenging  of  blood  was  left  entirely  to  the  rela- 
tives and  friends  of  the  dead  man  and  no  one  else;  it  was  thought  they 
would  avenge  all  that  was  necessary.  Now  this  is  changed.  I  do  not  call 
the  names  of  those  two  men,  because  the  counsel  that  represent  them  do  not, 
for  some  reason,  want  it  known;  may  be,  gentlemen,  at  this  stage,  they  are 
ashamed  to  be  known;  I  do  not  know  how  that  is,  perhaps  it  would  not  be 
right  for  me  to  tell  you  who  they  are;  I  will  tell  you  this,  neithroneof 
those  men,  when  Sim.  Conoley  was  alive,  has  ever  seen  the  day  when  he 
would  lend  him  $5,  biit  they  are  readj'  now  to  pour  out  their  money  to  bow 
down  that  broken  hearted  mother.  May  God  Almighty  have  mercy  upon 
those  men,  and  not  crush  them  before  they  have  time  to  repent  of  the  great 
sin  that  they  have  committed. 

That  is  not  all.  When  such  an  oily-tongued  man  as  Col.  Rowland,  I 
do  not  sai'  intentionally,  but  v^'hen  he  cites  the  testimonj-,  it  is  calculated 
to  do  harm  to  this  prisoner;  I  refer,  gentlemen,  to  the  testimony  of  McMillan 
and  Robbins;  he  said  the  defendant,  after  the  killing,  had  described  just 
how  the  murder  was  committed.  Not  a  word  of  it  so;  what  the  witnesses 
did  saj-  was  this,  that  after  he  he  had  gone  to  the  funeral  and  had  come 
back,  three  or  four  daj-s  after  the  killing,  he  told  this. 

I  want  merely  to  call  your  attention  to  some  important  points  in  the 
case.  I  wish  I  had  the  strength,  I  wish  I  had  the  time  to  take  this  case  up 
from  the  very  beginning,  from  the  start  to  the  end,  and  I  am  sure  you 
would  see  the  iniquity  of  it  all.  Robbins  said  some  one  called  him  to  the 
door  and  shot  him.  The  same,  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  Mr.  McMillan.  I 
call  these  things  to  your  mind,  gentlemen,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  cor- 
recting the  testimony;  you  recollect  it,  3'our  minds  will  be  refreshed  from 
the  case;  another  unfair  position  that  has  been  taken  by  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution — I  do  not  think  the  Solicitor  will  take  such  a  position — these 
men  that  have  preceded  him  for  the  prosecution  are  paid  to  say  what  they 
have  to  say,  they  are  paid  for  it;  the  Solicitor,  occupying  the  high  office  that 
he  does,  should  come  here  willing  to  state  the  law  correctly,  to  argue  it  cor- 
rectly, for  the  law  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  does  not  want  the  blood  of 
any  of  its  citizens,  any  one  of  its  citizens,  unless  it  is  obtained  in  a  lawful 
manner.  Now,  these  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  him  tell  you  that  Mr. 
McDougald  must  prove  his  innocence;  you  have  heard  it.  The  Court  will 
tell  you  that  that  is  not  the  law.  Every  man  is  presumed  to  be  innocent 
until  he  is  proved  to  be  guilty.  Now,  gentlemen,  until  they  prove  to  you 
be\'ond  a  reasonable  doubt — I  will  get  no  advantage  bj'  misstating  the  law 
to  you,  I  will  be  corrected  bv  the  Court  if  I  misstate  it,  therefore  I  should  be 
particular — I  say  until  the  State  of  North  Carolina  proves  beyond  a  reason- 
able doubt  that  McDougald  is  guilty,  he  is  not  required  to  open  his  mouth 
to  account  for  himself  or  to  offer  any  explanation.     That  is  the  law. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence,  and  you  cannot 
scan  it  and  weigh  it  too  closely;  it  is  uncertain,  and  so  particular  is  the  law 
in  regard  to  this  circumstantial  evidence,  that  it  says  that,  if  you  are  not 
satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  of  the  truth  of  every  material  fact  con- 
stituting this  chain  of  circumstances,  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit.  Further, 
it  is  the  law,  gentlemen,  that  if  the  defendant  prove  anv  one  fact  to  your  sat- 
isfaction inconsistent  with  his  guilt,  or  consistent  with  his  innocence,  it  is 
your  dutv  to  return  a  verdict  of  "  not  guilty."  Furthermore,  in  this  char- 
acter of  testimony,  this  circumstantial  testimony,  the  law  is,  that  if  j-on  are 
not  satisfied   that  these  material  facts  that  are   relied   upon   to   constitute 


J 64  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

this  chain  are  reasonable  and  natural,  then  it  is  j-our  duty  to  acquit.  There 
must  be  reason,  there  must  be  naturalness;  and  under  tihs  peculiar  case, 
with  this  chain  of  circumstances,  there  is  another  phase  of  the  law,  owing 
to  the  uncertaint)'  of  this  kind  of  testimony,  it  is  this:  if  upon  the  whole  tes- 
timony you  are  left  in  a  painful  state  of  anxiety  and  uncertainty,  it  is  your 
duty  to  return  a  verdict  of  "not  guilty."  That,  gentlemen,  I  suppose  to  be 
the  law,  and  in  that  view  I  will  discuss  it.  I  hope  I  am  right  in  my  construc- 
tion of  the  law,  because  I  am  going  to  base  my  argument  upon  that  view  of 
this  case. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  show  you  in  the  beginning  how  particular 
you  ought  to  be  in  this  testimony'.  You  never  have  been  engaged  in  a  case 
where  your  duties  were  more  important  than  they  are  now.  It  won't  do  for 
you  to  make  a  mistake  against  this  man.  The  counsel  appeal  to  you  and 
tell  3'ou  that  "whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed." 
You  are  not  the  ones  to  act  on  that.  Don't  you  know  here  for  two  whole 
days  how  they  endeavored  to  lay  the  foundation  of  this  case  by  proving  that 
at  that  concert  McDougald  wore  a  duster?  Don't  jou  recollect  how  they 
put  up  witness  upon  witness  to  prove  it?  Don't  3-ou  recollect  the  witness 
McMillan?  Don't  3'ou  recollect  the  witness  Robbins?  Don't  you  recollect 
Rich?  All  swore  to  30U,  gentlemen,  that  they  viere  there  in  the  audience 
that  night  of  the  concert,  and  that  this  man  McDougald  wore  a  duster-. 
These  are  all  good  men.  I  know  them  all;  they  were  swearing  to  you  what 
they  believed,  and,  gentlemen,  ifthis  life  had  depended  upon  that  issue,  and 
you  had  gone  out,  what  would  have  been  your  verdict?  McDougald  killed 
him.  But  afterwards,  when  the  testimony  for  the  defense  is  offered,  the  man 
McGann,  whose  character  is  admitted  beyond  dispute,  and  Robert  Phillips, 
as  good  a  man  as  ever  lived,  the  men  who  dressed  him,  the  men  who  acted 
with  him,  tell  j'ou  that  he  did  not  wear  a  duster.  I  call  that  to  your  minds, 
now,  gentlemen,  to  show  you  how  careful  you  ought  to  be  in  taking  testi- 
mony; here  are  three  good  men  who  have  sworn  to  an  act  which  the  State 
itself  admits  to  have  been  a  mistake,  and  such  a  mistake  as  that  this  man 
might  have  lost  his  life  by  it.     How  careful  should  you  be,  gentlemen. 

Did  this  man  go  to  Maxton  on  the  morning  of  the  2i.st,  get  off  and  stop? 
How  is  that?  You  ought  to  be  satisfied,  gentlemen,  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  that  is  so  The  State  ought  to  satisfy  you  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  McDougald,  on  the  morning  of  the  21st,  went  to  Maxton,- 
got  off  and  stopped.  If  he  did  not  the  chain  of  the  State  is  broken, 
the  chain  of  the  evidence  is  broken.  Now,  to  prove  that  fact,  what 
do  they  do?  What  is  reasonable,  gentlemen,  I  leave  it  to  you,  what 
would  be  reasonable  for  this  Insurance  Agent  living  in  the  town  of 
Maxton,  what  would  j-ou  reasonably  expect  of  him?  Where  would  you 
reasonably  expect  him  to  get  his  testimony'?  You  would  say  in  the  town  of 
Maxton,  a  town  of  6oo  inhabitants,  where  this  man,  from  morning  until 
noon,  until  the  train  went  to  Laurinburg,  was,  with  the  exception  of  when 
he  went  to  Alma;  that  could  be  established  beyond  all  peradventure.  What 
do  they  do?  Let  me  ask  you  why  I  do  not  go  to  Maxton  to  get  testimony; 
you  had  as  well  go  to  hell  in  search  of  a  professing  chri.stian  as  to  go  under 
the  influence  of  this  insurance  agent  living  there  to  get  testimony  in  favor 
of  the  prisoner.  What  do  they  do?  First,  they  hold  up  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Herring,  that  had  the  impudence  to  come  here  and  teH  you  that  he  was 
from  Laurinburg;  an  insult;  the  people  of  Laurinburg  would  not  tolerate 
him  there  twenty-four  hours;  he  is  from  the  heart  of  the  outlaws  in 
Robeson  county;  their  blood-thirsty  vindictiveness  is  shown  in  every  line  of 
his  testiimny  Hi  is  contradicted  bv  three  or  four  witnesses;  he  is  contra- 
dicted by  himself  in  the  unreasonable  tale  which  he  tells  about  this  hat, 
trying  to  fix  it  upon  McDougald,  and  he  describes  this  hat  four  or  five  davs 
before  it  was  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge;  he  states  that  this  blacking  could 
be  seen  plainly  under  his  e3'es  and  on  his  neck,  and  that  he  looked  to  be 
about  sixty  years  old.  Ever3'^  word  of  his  testimon3-  is  false,  as  false  can  be; 
if  there  was  no  witness  here  to  contradict  Herring  you  could  not  bring  a 
verdict  against  a  man  whose  life  was  at  stake  on  his  testimony. 

Where  next  does  this  Company  go  to  prove  that  he  was  blacked  at  Max- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  165 

ton,  or  that  he  was  there?  They  go  and  hunt  up  a  traveling  Israelite,  d 
wandering  Jew.  Wliere  they  got  him  I  do  not  Know,  it  might  have  been  in 
]\  cRae's  Cascades  or  his  Alleghanies,  but  I  rather  think  the}-  must  have 
g(  t  him  in  some  second-hand  clothing  store  in  New  York.  He  is  bronght 
In  re  to  tell  you  that  he  was  discolored  under  the  eyes,  and  that  he  was  a 
liltle  black  in  his  complexion;  how  unreasonable  that  is.  Now,  as  I  am  on 
the  subject,  I  will  finish  it.  On  the  part  of  the  defense,  Capt.  Powers,  as 
gc  od  a  man  as  could  be  brought  here  from  anywhere,  tells  you  that  he  saw 
him  face  to  face,  and  that  his  was  right  opposite  to  him.  dh,  they  tried  tO 
p;ove  afterwards  that  he  crouched;  gentlemen,  Capt.  Powers  says  that  he 
V  as  leaning  up  against  the  wall  at  the  depot  and  came  and  stooped  down 
and  talked  with  him.  Sellers,  living  at  Alma,  McGirt,  living  at  Alma,  tell 
50U  there  was  no  blacking  on  his  face.  Now,  gentlemen,  under  this  testi- 
mony, have  not  you  a  doubt  whether  there  was  lalacking  on  his  face  or  not  ? 
Are  you  satisfied  be^-ond  a  rea.sonable  doubt  from  this  testimony  that  he 
had  black  on  his  face  that  morning?  You  are  conscientious,  good  men;  you 
will  not  say  that  jou  aie  satisfit^d  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  had 
blacking  on  his  face.  And  Crowson,  the  nephew  of  a  Methodist  preacher — as 
unfair  as  tliey  are  the\-  would  not  saj-  he  is  the  .son  ot  a  preacher, — the  nephev^ 
of  a  preacher,  sa\s  he  had  red  mud  on  his  feet  iw  the  town  of  Maxton.  There 
is  not  a  pound  of  red  mud  in  tv\enty  miles  of  Maxton;  ihe  color  of  the  mud  irl 
and  around  Maxton  is  the  color  of  the  hearts  of  some  of  these  witnesses  that 
have  been  testifying  here,  as  black  as  ink.  NovV,  gentlemen,  don't  yoii 
know  that  if  this  man  had  been  there  in  the  town  of  Maxton,  in  the  heart 
of  the  town,  from  early  morning  till  12  o'clock,  they  would  have  brought 
some  other  testimony;  there  is  not  any  doubt  about  it.  PcW-rs  is  the  first 
man  that  sees  him,  when  the  train  f  ets  there;  he  would  have  been  blacker 
then,  his  appearance  would  have  been  more  unusual  then  than  at  any  other 
time,  and  he  swears  to  you  that  there  vvas  nothing  unusual  in  his  appear^ 
ance.  and  that  his  face  was  not  blacked. 

Did  he  get  off  and  stop  at  Maxton  ? — the  proposition  that  I  first  intended 
to  discuss.  Now  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  testimony  is  over- 
powering that  he  went  to  Alma  and  got  of!  at  Alma.  They  bring  up  a  wit- 
ness here,  Luther  McCormick,  who  testifies  that  he  saw  him  when  he  got 
otf.  and  describes  about  all  these  bundles  and  valises  and  dusters  and  oil- 
cloths that  he  had,  and  then  swears  that  he  did  not  get  back  on  the  train.' 
Dugald  McNair,  as  true  a  Scotchman  as  ever  God  put  honest  breath  into; 
tells  you  that  he  went  with  him  to  Alma;  Horace  Jones,  the  man  that  wai 
on  the  train  with  him,  swears  to  vou  positively  that  he  went  to  Alma.  Can 
you  have  a  doubt  about  that,  that  th-^se  two  men  have  told  the  truth?  Can  you? 
Dugald  McNair  has  got  no  interest  in  this  mntter,  no,  a  thousand  times  noj 
gentlemen,  if  there  is  any  reason  to  belif\e  r.ny  testimony  that  has  been  in* 
troduced  here  it  is  his.  He  gave  testinu  ny,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that 
he  did  not  collect  his  fare;  it  is  against  his  inrertst  to  so  testify;  it  is  as  true 
as  Holy  Writ;  Dugald  McNair  don't  lie,  and  Luther  McCormick  don't  con- 
tradict, becau.se  according  to  Luther  McCormick  he  got  off  the  train,  and  so 
with  regard  to  Cottingham,  Cottinghani  onl\  swears  he  got  off,  he  don't  say 
that  he  stopped.  ' 

Did  he  get  on  at  the  tank  ?  The  counsel  for  the  State  says  if  Phillips  is 
to  be  believed.  There  is  no  one  in  the  house  asks  you  to  believe  the  running 
of  that  e.xtra  train  on  that  day;  it  may  have  run,  but  if  there  is  anything 
certain  in  this  moral  universe,  it  is  certain  that  the  extra  train  did  not  run 
on  that  day;  that  is  certain,  for  the  railroad  ofTicials  here  swear  to  you  that 
the  records  show  to  you  that  no  extra  train  left  on  that  day  or  came  back  oti 
that  day,  and  that  this  man  Phillips  was  in  the  shop  working;  so  if  Phillips 
tells  the  truth,  he  is  mistaken  about  that;  if  he  has  not  lied  about  this  extri 
train,  then  he  is  mistaken.  But  says  one  of  the  counsel,  you  know  that 
these  railroads  are  more  particular  about  the  shekels,  that  is,  he  meani 
about  the  fares,  than  they  are  about  the  schedule,  the  date  of  departure  and 
arrival  of  trains  from  their  yards.  In  the  name  of  the  officers  of  the  Cape 
Fear  and  Yadkin  Valley  Railroad,  and  of  the  Carolina  Central  Railroad,  as 
good  and  as  true  men  as  ever  lived  in  North  Carolina,  I  deny  any  such  a 


166  Vie  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

charge;  I  do  not  know  more  high-toned,  conservative  men  in  North  Caro- 
lina. I  do  not  know  men  more  careful  of  the  lives  of  their  passengers  than 
these  gentlemen,  and  they  would  rather  lose  all  the  fares  than  to  sacrifice 
and  endanger  the  lives  of  their  passengers  b}'  letting  trains  come  and  go 
without  taking  any  notice  of  it  or  m  iking  a  record  of  it.  The  charge  ought 
not  to  have  been  made  against  the  gentlemen;  the  evidence  does  not  justify 
it,  the  character  of  these  gentlemen  ought  not  to  be  aspersed  here  so  betore 
you.  Phillips  is  not  mistaken.  And  don't  you  recolLct,  says  these  learned 
counsel,  learned  in  Scripture  perhaps  as  much — ^judging  by  their  atgu- 
ments — or  more  than  thev  are  in  law.  They  tell  you  that  the  Scriptures  are 
proof,  that  the  four  Gospels  of  the  Apostles  are  proof,  on  account  of  the  dif- 
ferent versions  and  descriptions  of  Christ — and  I  hope  that  God  may  forgive 
nie  for  using  that  name  in  connection  with  anything  that  I  may  have  to  say 
of  Phillips — they  say  that  it  is  proved  by  the  differences;  well,  then,  if  this 
is  so,  the  testimony  of  Daniels,  this  Insurance  Agent,  that  is  written  by  his 
apostles,  Phillips,  Lizzie  McCoy,  Fannie  Mears  and  the  balance  of  them, 
will  be  orthodox  in  the  e.xtreme.  Listen  at  them.  Lizzie  McCoy  says  that 
it  was  McDougald  sitting  on  the  sill  at  the  water-tank,  and  he  was  v^-ell 
dressed,  she  knew  him.  What  does  Phillips  say?  He  looked  like  a  tramp. 
Then  if  you  prove  things  by  differences  that  is  right.  One  says  he  was  well 
dressed,  and  another  says  he  looked  like  a  tramp.  Is  that  an  unanswerable 
argument  that  he  was  the  same  man  ?  Phillips  said  he  looked  seedy  like  a 
tramp,  and  they  say  that  Phillips  told  the  truth.  The  Solicitor  is  not  going  to 
take  any  different  position  from  his  three  counsel  who  have  preceded  him, 
except  that  he  is  not  going  to  ask  you  to  believe  that  man;  with  all  that  is 
said  about  that  man.  he  has  not  the  heart  nor  the  will  nor  the  mind  to  do  it. 

What  else  does  Phillips  say?  If,  as  the  counsel  who  addressed  you  say, 
Phillips  tells  the  truth,  then  the  railroad  men  tell  3-ou  Phillips  was  mi.stakeu 
in  the  extra  i  unning.  Phillips  tells  you  that  he  saw  McDougald  standing  on 
the  platform  of  Lockamy's  train  at  Red  Springs,  sitting  on  the  platform  at 
Red  Springs;  if  he  did.  then  Lockamy's  train  did  not  run  on  the  21st;  it  was 
some  other  day  than  the  21st  that  Phillips,  Lizzie  McCoy  and  Lockamy  .saw 
McDougald;  if  they  saw  him  there,  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  that.  That 
must  satisfy  you,  gentlemen,  of  this  discrepancy  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

Now,  gentlemen,  here  is  another  fact.  If  we  satisfy  you,  gentlemen,  of 
anyone  fact  inconsistent  with  his  guilt,  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit  him.  I  know, 
I  believe,  that  the  court  will  tell  you  that,  because  it  is  right.  On  the  2rst, 
between  Wakulla  and  Red  Springs,  was  McDougald  on  that  train  ?  I  tell 
you,  if  Rufus  F.  Devane  is  to  be  believed,  he  was  not.  He  does  not  give 
you  a  description  of  that  duster,  but  he  tells  you  that  the  man  he  saw  on  the 
train  there  between  Wakulla  and  Red  Springs  was  taller  than  McDougald; 
that  he  was  not  like  McDougald;  and,  looking  at  him  now,  he  would  say  it 
was  not  McDougald,  that  he  was  of  a  darker  complexion.  "But,"  saj's  the 
counsel,  "did  he  have  a  beard  ?"  Trifles  light  as  air,  they  are  asking  the 
blood  of  this  man  for  Do  jailers  furnish  razors?  Are  jails  barber  shops? 
Suppose  every  pri.'on?r  was  furnished  with  a  razor,  how  long  would  he  stay 
in  prison  ?  And  here,  becaa.se  his  beard  has  grown  naturally,  he  is  to  be 
hung.  If  Rufus  DeVane's  testimony  is  to  be  believed  McDougald  was  not 
on  the  train  on  that  day.  He  is  a  gentleman  of  high  character;  he  is  a  gen- 
tleman of  intelligence,  and  he  is  corroborated  by  this  girl  Sallie  Wilkes  be- 
fore the  investigation  at  Mill  Prong;  she  tells  you  that  he  was  taller  than 
Sim.  Conoley,  and  Sim.  Conoley  was  much  taller  than  McDougald.  He  is 
corroborated  by  the  old  lady,  Effie  Conoley;  she  tells  3^011  that  the  man  was 
taller  than  McDougald.  Three  witnesses,  gentlemen,  who  svi'ear  that  he 
was  a  taller  man,  that  he  did  not  have  the  build  of  McDougald.  Are  you 
not  SHtisfied  of  it?  Who  contradicts  it?  And,  gentlemen,  if  this  testimony 
that  the  State  relies  on  here  is  unnatural,  is  unrea.sonable,  it  is  your  duty  to 
reject  it,  and  I  think  the  Court  will  tell  you  so;  he  may  not  in  those  words, 
but  in  substance,  for  I  doubt  not  it  is  the  law  of  North  Carolina. 

Now.  I  ask  you  if  there  is  anything  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  that 
is  not  the  most  unnatural  and  unreasonable  that  a  sane  man  could  do?  Do 
you  believe,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  outside  of  the  mad  house  there  ex- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  167 

ists  a  man  that  would  perpetrate  this  murder,  walk  in  the  dead  hours  of  the 
night  to  Campbell's  bridge,  take  off  the  clothes  in  which  he  did  the  murder, 
and  leave  them  there  in  a  public  place,  go  three-quarters  of  a-mile  to  the 
house  of  a  man  that  he  knew  and  wash  the  black  from  his  face.  I  ask 
you  if  any  man  outside  of  the  madhouse  would  do  it  ?  I  ask  you  if  it 
is  not  the  most  unnatural,  the  most  unreasonable,  proposition  to  submit 
to  a  jury  of  sworn  meji  and  ask  them  to  believe  it?  Is  it  natural  that  one 
commiLtiiig  murder  would  walk  fourteen  miles  to  a  public  place,  where  there 
was  a  mill  and  store  within  eight  feet  of  the  public  road,  pull  off  the  clothes 
that  he  had  murdered  the  man  in,  lay  them  down  there  so  that  they  would 
be  seen  by  every  one,  go  to  the  house  of  this  perjured  villain,  Gillespie,  wash 
his  face,  look  at  him,  and  then  go  to  the  town  of  Maxton  in  broad  daylight? 
Never.  No,  gentlemen,  never;  he  did  not  do  it.  The  very  face  of  the  testi- 
mony is  unreasonaule,  unnatural.  If  it  were  McDougald  that  was  at  Shan- 
don — before  God  I  tell  you  that  the  evidence  casts  that  aside— but  if  it  were 
he  do  you  believe  that  in  that  one  mile  and  a-half  that  he  walked,  openly 
seeing  every  one,  he  then  stops  and  blacks  himself,  and  as  my  young" 
friend,  Mr.  Shaw,  who  preceded  me,  tells,  that  if  he  blacked  himself  with 
lampblack  it  was  an  impossibility,  because  there  was  no  water.  The  Solic- 
itor cannot  account  for  it;  j'ou  cannot  u.se  lampblack  without  water,  and  if 
he  had  water  in  his  vali.se  in  any  vessel,  is  it  not  natural  to  suppose  that  it 
would  be  at  Campbell's  bridge,  if  he  put  those  clotlies  there?  It  is  not  rea- 
sonable, it  is  not  natural,  it  is  not  probable.  Did  those  clothes  belong  to 
McDougald  that  were  found  at  Campbell's  bridge?  You  cannot  say  that 
they  did.  They  have  tortured  testimony  in  every  way,  they  have  twi.sted 
it  in  every  way,  but  they  cannot  do  it.  The  history  of  those  clothes 
jfirst  begins  according  to  the  State's  testimony  with  Jim  McBryde.  As 
he  went  to  Wilmington  McBryde  tells  him  that  some  clothes  have  been 
found  there,  and  that  it  is  highlj'  important  that  he  should  get  them  and 
take  charge  of  them  because  it  might  give  some  clue  to  this  killing.  Now, 
upon  the  advice  of  McBryde,  he,  then  being  on  the  train  to  Wilmington,  im- 
mediately goes  back  home  and  goes  after  the  clothes.  Does  he  act  like  a 
man  that  the  clothes  belong  to?  No.  What  does  he  do?  The  State  would 
have  you  to  believe  in  an  unfair  argument  here,  that  he  went  there  and  tried 
to  hide  the  clothes.  Gentlemen,  before  he  got  there  he  went  by  the  house  of 
McKoy  McKinnon.  I  know  him,  a  good  man  he  is;  some  man  referred  to 
him  here  as  being  from  Maxton — an  injustice  to  that  man — I  want  to  tell 
you.  he  does  not  live  in  Maxton,  he  lives  in  the  county  of  Richmond,  and 
we  are  proud  that  he  lives  there.  What  does  he  tell  3'ou  ?  Retells  you  that 
this  man  came  by  his  house  and  told  him  he  heard  those  clothes  were  there 
and  he  was  going  for  them.  Does  that  look  like  hiding  the  clothes,  going 
to  the  house  of  such  a  man  and  voluntarily,  without  being  asked,  tells  him 
where  he  is  going,  and  when  he  gets  b  ck  takes  them  out  of  the  box  of  his 
cart  and  shows  them  to  him  ?  Does  that  look  like  hiding?  Not  a  bit;  oh 
my  !  "  man's  inhumanity  to  man  !" 

Did  you  see  that  man  Currie  come  here  with  a  cold-blooded  intention  of 
fixing  guilt  upon  this  man.  undertaking  to  swear  to  the  color  of  the  clothes 
that  ht;  had  worn  when  he  had  not  seen  him  for  two  years.  "  Man's  inhu- 
manity to  man."  Had  not  seen  him  for  two  3'ears,  and  asks  you  to  believe 
that  he  wore  a  gray  suit  of  clothes.  But  these  lawyero,  these  insurance 
lawyers,  these  lawyers  with  the  dollars  of  that  infernal  corporation  rattling 
in  their  pockets  come  here  and  .seek  to  claim  the  life  of  this  man  McDougald. 
Robbins  savs  that  he  thinks  he  had  a  suit  of  graj*  clothes  some  time  ago. 
Robhins  was  mistaken  about  the  duster;  he  was  positive  that  he  had  worn 
the  duster  at  the  concert.  Robbins  was  mistaken;  if  you  had  believed  Roo- 
bins  this  poor  boy  might  have  lost  his  life;  now  he  says  that  he  had  gray 
pepper-and  salt  pants;  mistaken  as  to  the  duster,  could  he  not  have  been 
mistaken  about  this  ?  As  he  made  a  serious  and  dangerous  mistake  about 
the  duster,  could  3'ou  trust  him  as  being  infallible  about  McDougald  wearing 
the  pepper-and  salt  pants?  But  this  man  does  not  stop  there;  he  brings  up 
his  partner,  Robert  Phillips,  than  whom  no  better  man  lives;  Robert  tells 
you  that  he  never  wore  a  gray  suit  of  clothes,  that  he  wore  a  blue  suit  in  the 


168  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

week  and  that  he  had  a  black  suit  for  Sunday.  Nobody  that  saw  th's  myste- 
rious personage  said  that  he  had  on  a  pepper-and-salt  pair  of  pants;  every- 
body that  saw  him  spoke  of  him  as  having  dark  clothes;  and  in  the  great 
endeavor  of  the  State  to  prove  whose  clothes  they  were,  they  would  ask  wit- 
ness after  witness  as  they  piled  them  in.  what  kind  of  a  habit  did  he  have, 
trying  to  get  out  of  those  witnesses  that  he  had  h  habit  of  wiping  his  pen  on 
his  pants;  the  men  that  had  seen  those  clothes  were  men  of  character,  good 
men,  and  they  would  not  lie.  If  it  had  been  old  man  McLauchlin  upon  the 
stand,  he  would  have  stated  that  it  was  his  invariable  habit  of  wiping  his 
hands  to  pull  off  his  pants,  and  wipe  them  upon  them.  Now,  so  much  for 
the  pants.  It  was  not  in  evidence  that  the  man  who  was  seen  in  these  vari- 
ous places  had  on  gray  clothes. 

But  there  is  another  matttrr  connected  with  this  identification  of  these 
clothes.     They  prove  that,  between  the  17th  of  March  and  the  15th  day  of 
April.   McDougald    bought   a    package   of   lampblack    from   Dr.    Graham; 
you  recollect  Dr.  Graham's  testimony,  they  asked  tiim  a  question  if  he  had 
not  told  him  that  he  bought  it  for  a  man  by  the  name  of  Charlie  Wicker, 
that  Wicker  wanted  to  use  it  in  a  concert  at  Rowland;  did  they  prove  that, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury?     It  would  have  been  a  circumstance;  it  may  be  fair 
for  these  men  who  are  working  here  for  money,  they  may  excuse  themselves 
for  arguing  that,  but  the  impartial  officer  that  represents  the  commonwealth 
here  in  this  prosecution  is  not  justified  in  arguing  to  you  that  he  bought  it  for 
any  such  purpose  when  he  withholds  from  you  thetestimon3'  of  Charlie  Wick- 
er?    The  proper  inference  for  you  to  draw,  and  that  he  ought  to  tell  you,  is 
that  Charlie  Wicker  would  have  corroborated  Dr.  Graham;  Charlie  Wicker 
was  here.     Now,  j'entlemen,  it  was  unfair  to  you  to  bring  Charlie  Wicker 
here  and  not  allow  him  to  testify  before  you,  and  the  proper  inference  for  you 
to  draw  is  that  if  these  gentlemen  had  put  him  upon  the  stand  he  would 
not  prove  that  which  they  propose  to  prove  is  true.     There  is  another  cir- 
cumstance, gentlemen  of  the  jury,   that  cannot  be  wiped  out.     The\'  come 
and  in  strong  language  talk  about  the  loss  of  these  clothes,  and  insinuate 
here  that  McDougald  was  instrumental  in  losing  them  himself.     Well,  now, 
gentlemen,  there  is  one  thing  that,  if  we  had  it  here,  woiild  throw  great  light 
upon  that  matter,  and  that  is  the  blacking  that  was  left  in  the  cart  at  John 
Conoley's;  that  was  not  lost,  that  package  of  blacking  is  traced  to  the  pos- 
session of  this  prosecution.     Hector  McNair,  as  a  witness,  testifies  this  insu- 
rance man  took  it  away.     Mr.  Solicitor,  give  me  that  blacking,  give  me  this 
package  of  blacking;  do  not  withhold  it  here  and  say  it  was  the  blacking 
that  was  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge;  let  me  bring  Dr.  Graham  to  see  what 
brand  was  on  it;  let  it  be  proved  to  the  jury  that  it  was  the  same  brand  as  the 
blacking  that  he  bought.     This  lampblack,  gentlemen,  as  j'ou  all  know,  is 
sold  by  the  ounce;  if  there  is  no  brand  on  it,  let  me  prove  here  to  this  jrry 
whether  it  was  the  shape  of  the  blacking  that  Dr.  Graham  sold,  whether  it 
was  the  shape  of  the  blacking  that  was  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge.     /  s 
they  withhold  from  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  package  of  blacking,  it 
is  unfair,  and  it  does  not  lie  in  their  mouths  to  say  that  it  is  the  same  that 
was  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge.     Is  not  that  so?     You  see  if  it  were  here, 
and  they  have  got  it  according  to  this  testimony,  it  would  throw  light  upon 
this  matter,  but  they  withhold  it,  although  poor  McDougald's  life  may  be 
forfeited;  well  it  is  not  here,  although  they  took  it  from  poor  John  Conoley's. 
Now,  gentlemen.  I  am  tired,  and  I  know  you  are;  I  have  not  discussed 
near  the  whole  situation,  but  I  think  you  will  not  need  me  to  refer  to  every- 
thing.    Now  they   ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  find   here,  from  the  description 
given  by  these  various  witnesses  of  the  appearance  of  this  man  down  the 
road,  that.it  was  McDougald;  they  ask  j-ou  to  do  that,   gentlemen,  in  the 
face  of  the  testimony  and  the  mistakes  made  by  McMillan  and  by  Robbins 
and  by  Rich.     None  of  them  saw  him  alike;  why  at  that  concert  that  they 
relied  upon  so  much,  at  Laurinburg,   these  thiee  men  said  that  he  wore 
side-whiskers;  Phillips  and  McGann,  the  men  who  dres.sed  him,  and  the 
men  who  acted  with  him,  tell  3-ou  that  he  wore  a  beard  all  over  his  face. 
How  uncertain,  how  unsafe  is  this  testimony?     Some  of  the  witnesses  on 
that  road  tell  you  the  man  that  they  saw  had  on  a  beard,  even  as  long  aa 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  169 

tliiS:  some  tell  you  that  he  had  a  moustache;  some  tell  j'ou  that  he  had  si'de- 
whiskers;  some  that  he  had  none.  Some  tell  j'ou  that  he  had  a  light-colored 
duster;  some  tell  you  that  he  had  a  dove-colored  duster;  some  tell  you  that 
he  had  a  mud-colored  duster:  and  applying  the  Scripture  as  laid  down  by 
Daniels  and  the  apostles,  Phillips  and  i^izzie  McCoy,  the}'  ask  you,  on 
account  of  these  great  differences  and  discrepancies,  to  find  that  it  was  Mc- 
Dougald.     That  is  the  argument. 

Oh,  but  they  say  he  fled.  It  is  hard  to  account  for  the  operation  of  fear 
on  the  human  mind,  hard  to  account  for  that  conversation  lightlj'  spoken 
by  Duncan  McBrj'de — for  INIcDougald  at  the  time  said  verj'  little  in  regard 
to  it — that  Millard  Moore  was  trying  to  fix  the  crime  upon  him.  ^Millard 
had  enmity  for  him:  30U  know  he  had  a  deed  for  that  land,  and  he  thought, 
"  If  Sim.  Conoley  was  out  of  the  way,  I  have  got  that  deed,  and  if  I  can  get 
Dan.  McDougald  out  of  the  way  the  land  is  mine."  When  the  clothes  were 
lost  that  night  the  simple,  kindly,  tru,=tful  nature  of  McDougald  takesalarm, 
and  the  further  he  goes  the  more  he  hears.  Livingston  tells  him  he  will 
be  one  of  five  to  hang  the  man;  here  is  Millard  Moore  manufacturing  testi- 
mony; the  air  becomes  filled  with  rumors  of  lynching;  it  is  rife  in  Maxton, 
it  is  rife  at  Laurinburg.  He  starts  to  see  his  lawj-ers  and  he  is  told  by  Liv- 
ingston that  he  is  read}-  to  lynch  him,  and  you  say  that  he  did  not  act 
wisely?  I  tell  you  gentlemen,  when  that  man  Crowson  went  up  there 
to  attack  this  man  McDougald,  if  McDougald  had  not  have  told  those  people 
a  tale  that  would  satisfy  their  blood-thirsty  craving  for  his  life  he  would 
have  swung  in  the  town  of  Maxton  as  sure  as  the  sun  ever  shone.  There  is 
but  one  thing  that  might  have  prevented  it,  and  that  is  the  hands  of  those 
men  that  gathered  arounds  the  depot  to  save  him.  You  may  saj^  that  you 
are  brave  and  courageoxis,  but,  gentlemen,  3'ou  do  not  know,  5'ou  do  not  know 
how  you  would  act  when  an  infuriated  mob  threatened  to  lynch  you,  and 
you  do  not  know  when  it  is  started  by  such  a  man  as  Millard  Moore.  This 
flight  may  be  attributed  to  many  things;  you  can  not  tell  how  these  things 
operate  upon  the  hvnuan  mind. 

Can  you,  gentlemen,  be  satisfied  that  this  testimony  is  natural,  that 
it  is  reasonable,  that  it  is  certain  ?  (rentlemen,  do  you  tell  me  that  you 
find  here  that  it  is  natural  and  reasonable  for  a  murderer  to  have  walked  to 
Campbell's  Bridge  and  have  left  those  clothes  there?  Do  you  tell  me  that 
it  is  natural  and  that  it  is  reasonable  that  he  wovild  walk  the  broad,  public 
Toad,  after  the  sun  was  up  an  hour  high,  to  the  town  of  Maxton,  and  never 
be  seen  by  a  human  ?  Do  3'ou  tell  me  that  it  is  reasonable,  do  you  tell  me 
that  it  is  natural?  If  it  is  not,  it  is  your  duty  to  say  "not  guilty."  Do 
vou  tell  me,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  nntural  for  a  man  in  his  senses,  an  intelli- 
gent man,  toridedown  in  a  railroad  train  to  the  town  ofShandon,  getoffthere 
in  public  view,  seen  by  every  one.  walk  the  public  road  for  a  mile,  seen  by 
everybody,  and  then  disguise  himself  and  go  to  these  places  ?  Is  is  natural  ? 
And  then  commit  this  crime  and  walk  back?  As  I  sa\',  no  rea.sonable  per- 
son did  that.  If  that  is  so,  and  the  theory  of  the  vState  is  true,  then  human 
nature  is  a  lie. 

They  say  that  McDougald  tried  to  rub  out  the  steps;  the.se  tracks  were 
about  ten  inches  long  and  he  wore  No.  8  shoes;  when  3'ou  go  home  and 
measure  the  length  of  a  No.  8  shoe  j-ou  will  .see  that  they  would  hang  him 
upon  false  testimonj^  for  if  their  length  was  that  of  a  No.  8  shoe  it  was 
over  eleven  inches.  Poor  Wilkes,  it  was  bad  in  him  to  come  here  after  being 
with  that  detective  to  endeavor  to  take  the  life  of  this  poor  man,  but  it  was 
not  as  corrupt  and  mean  as  it  was  in  him  to  suborn  the  testimony  of  his 
own  child  and  make  her  swear  differently  here  from  what  she  did  at  Mill 
Prong.  * 

Gentlemen,  it  is  not  worth  while  foi  me  to  discuss  motive  in  this  matter. 
It  has  been  abl\'  discussed  by  the  other  counsel  and,  I  can  say,  given  up  b}- 
the  prosecution.  The  last  counsel  stated  that  the  motive  was  that  when 
Lizzie  Conoley  was  paid  the  55.000  she  could  pa}'  him  back  the  amount  of  the 
mortgage  that  he  paid  Mr.  Thomson.  Well,  if  that  is  not  the  most — I  don't 
know — isn't  it  the  most  ?  The\'  had  Mr.  Thomson  here;  I  do  not  know  him, 
but  I  suppose  he  is  a  good  man;  why  did  they  not  put  him  on  the  stand  and 


170  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald. 

lefhim  tell  you  that  that  mortgage  was  only  $ioc;  that  MeDougald  paid  out 
I239  when  he  was  onl)-  in  debt  $100?  Why  don't  they  do  it?  God  knows, 
I  do  not.  But  there  is  another  thing  that  I  almost  forgot,  that  is  this  plot, 
this  plot.  Gentlemen,  if  there  was  nothing  else  in  this  sad  case  but  this 
plot,  spurned  and  trampled  on  by  the  counsel  for  the  State  after  its  intro- 
duction, proved  by  the  State's  witnesses  that  it  is  false,  and  poor  old  Mc- 
Lauchlin,  brought  here  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  that  plot,  swears  first 
that  it  was  true  and  sticks  to  it  that  it  was  a  true  representation  of  that 
localitj'  there.  Did  the}'  introduce  McLauchlin,  in  cold  blood,  to  come  here 
and  swear  as  he  did  ?  That  is  left  for  the  future  to  develop.  That  he  did  it 
is  beyond  any  dispute,  and  it  is  admitted  by  the  State,  their  own  witnesses 
swear,  that  this  house  kitchen  that  McLauchlin  swears  was  beside  the  house 
was  some  thirty  3'ards  to  the  east;  that  in  no  manner  nor  shape  is  that  plot 
true,  and  no  counsel  for  the  prosecution  has  dared  to  hold  that  plot  to  the 
jury  as  true.  I  speak  it  before  high  Heaven,  that,  seeing  here  in  this  case 
this  false  plot  attempted  to  be  established  by  false  testimony,  is  a  matter 
that  ought  to  satisfy  you  of  this  prisoner's  innocence.  There  is  another 
plot,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  ought  to  be  here,  and  it  is  the  malicious 
plot  that  has  been  woven  by  this  Insurance  Company  and  its  money  to  man- 
ufacture the  testimony  of  this  prosecution.  We  are  not  allowed  to  bring  in 
here  the  conduct  of  that  detective;  it  may  be  the  law,  gentlemen,  but  God 
knows  it  is  not  right,  and  it  is  not  fair  to  this  boy  that  this  murderous  plot 
should  not  be  exposed.  Tell  me  with  all  this  unnatural  testimony,  these 
unreasonable  statements,  that  you  have  not  a  doubt,  that  this  man's  life 
must  be  taken,  that  you  can  not  say  that  you  are  uncertain! 

It  is  said,  gentlemen,  or  has  been  said,  that  when  the  Almighty  formed 
a  conception  to  make  man  that  he  called  into  his  council  his  three  favorite 
spirits.  Truth,  Justice  and  Mercj',  and  asked  if  man  should  be  made.  Truth 
replied,  no,  that  he  would  attack  his  neighbor  and  that  he  would  take  up  a 
reproach  against  his  neighbor;  Justice  replied,  no,  that  he  would  violate  Thy 
righteous  law;  Mercy  replied,  "  Make  man,  oh  Lord;  I  will  go  with  him,  I  will 
be  with  him  through  life,  and  when  he  appears  in  Thy  Court  above  I  will 
intercede  for  him."  In  3'our  hands,  gentlemen,  I  commit  your  brother  man. 
Deal  with  him  as  you  expect  this  great  Spirit  of  Mercy  to  deal  with  you 
when  you  are  called  to  that  higher  court  above  to  answer  to  your  God.  You 
have  been  told,  gentlemen,  that  when  the  State  closes,  and  the  Judge  shall 
have  discharged  his  duty  and  delivered  his  charge,  that  nothing  will  stand 
between  this  poor  boy  and  death  but  you.  It  is  true;  it  is  true;  and  I  beg 
you,  gentlemen,  when  you  do  retire  with  that  fearful  responsibility,  that 
you  make  no  mistake.  The  mistakes  of  this  life  are  not  corrected  beyond 
the  grave;  if  you  have  a  doubt  about  the  unreasonableness  of  this  testimony, 
if  you  have  a  doubt  that  it  is  unfair,  if  you  are  satisfied  that  R.  F.  DeVane 
was  on  the  train  between  Wakulla  and  the  Springs  on  the  21st,  then  your 
verdict  must  be  "  not  guilty."     It  is  5'our  dut5^ 

There  is  .something  in  this  case  that  ought  to  drive  away  the  doubt  from 
every  juror  who  has  a  heart  that  is  not  one  of  stone;  it  was  the  meeting  be- 
tween this  poor  boy  and  his  old  grandmother,  such  as  I  have  never  wit- 
nessed, when  on  bended  knee  he  kissed  tho.se  palsied  hands,  and  the  tears  of 
the  old  grandmother,  tears  so  refined  and  so  clear,  .so  limpid  and  so  meek 
that  the}-  would  not  have  stained  an  angel's  cheek  fell  on  that  darling  boy's 
cheek.  I  tell  you,  in  the  presence  of  the  Being,  in  which  I  know  I  always 
am,  and  in  all  reverence,  that  no  such  meeting  cou'd  have  taken  place  be- 
tween the  murderer  and  the  mother  of  the  man  that  was  murdered.  Never, 
never.  Now,  gentlemen,  with  this  unreasonable  testimrvn3\  this  testimony 
with  so  many  contradictions,  so  much  uncertainty,  c»in  you  saj'  that  your 
minds  are  freed  from  painful  anxietj';  can  you  say  that  your  minds  are  freed 
from  .sorrow?  This  boy's  life  is  in  your  hands,  and  if  you  cannot  say  it,  if 
your  mind  is  not  free  from  uncertainty  and  if  it  is  not  free  from  doubt,  it  is 
your  duty  to  give  him  the  benefit  of  that  doubt — this  poor  boy !  And  I  trust, 
gentlemen,  that  that  Great  Spirit  may  so  guide  you,  may  so  aid  you  about 
this  testimony  that  you  may  come  in  here  and  answer  the  pra3-ers  of  this 
poor  old  gray-haired  father,  this  weeping  mother  with  her  heart  bleeding  at 
every  pore,  and  say  to  them  "  not  guilty!  " 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  171 


Frank  McNeal,  Esq.,  Soli citor— for  the  state. 

May  it  please  your  Honor  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury: 

It  now  comes  my  turn  in  this  important  trial  to 
di.scuss  the  evidence  and  to  help  you  if  I  can  to  ascer- 
tain the  truth  of  this  matter.  It  is  proper,  perhaps, 
as  so  much  has  been  said  about  the  connection  of  the 
Insurance  Company  with  the  prosecution  and  about 
thirsting  for  the  blood  of  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar,  that  I 
come  to  the  discharge  of  the  duty  now  before  me  freeot 
any  bitterness  towards  the  prisoner  or  his  counsel,  or 
anjone  else,  that  I  come  here  for  no  purpose  of  resent- 
ment towards  counsel  who  in  heat  ofdebate  have  said 
some  harsh  and  unwarranted  things.  I  would  feel 
that  I  was  unworthy  of  my  position  if  I  were  to  de- 
vote the  time  allowed  me  in  this  hou.se  to  any  other 
purpose  than  that  of  discussing  the  evidence  and  aid- 
FRANK  McNKAL,  ESQ.,  ing  you  in  coming  to  a  proper  conclusion.  I  come, 
of  Rockingham,  N.  c.  I  humbly  trust,  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  looking  to 
Him  for  strength  and  guidance. 
Now  let  us  come  "to  the  law  and  the  testimon}'^"  :  On  the  night  of  the 
2ist  ot  last  April  Simeon  Conole}'  was  murdered,  most  foully  and  brutally 
murdered,  within  one  hundred  and  fifty  5-ards  of  his  own  home.  He  was  the 
uncle  of  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar,  and  we  have  the  prisoner's  own  account  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  murder.  He  told  Rev.  Mr.  Lyon,  D.  D.  Livingston, 
James  McBryde  and  G.  S.  McMillan  and  others  how  it  was  supposed  to  be, 
and  is  in  substance  as  follows :  That  it  was  supposed  to  be  a  white  man  dis- 
guised as  a  negro;  that  he  called  himself  Lum  Johnson;  that  he  came  up 
to  the  gate  where  deceased  lived  and  asked  if  that  was  where  John  Wilkes 
lived,  and  asked  deceased  to  go  and  show  him  the  way  to  Wilkes';  that  de- 
ceased, who  had  just  eaten  his  supper  and  bathed  his  feet,  told  him  he  would 
go  and  show  him  the  way  as  soon  as  he  could  put  on  his  shoes;  that  de- 
ceased did  put  on  his  shoes  and  lead  the  way  towards  Wilkes',  the  man 
Lum  Johnson  following;  that  when  they  got  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  yards 
from  the  house  where  Conoley  lived  Lum  Johnson  shot  Conoley  in  back  of 
head  and  then  shot  him  after  he  was  on  the  ground;  that  it  was  supposed 
from  the  tracks  that  the  man  intended  to  kill  Conoley  by  wa5^1aying  him 
on  the  road  as  he  returned  from  his  work  to  his  home  that  evening,  but  that 
Conole}'  passed  along  before  the  man  got  to  the  place,  and  that  after  waiting 
for  some  time  he  went  up  back  of  the  house  and  tried  to  shoot  Conoley  from 
through  the  window,  and  failing  in  that  called  him  out  as  above  stated.  In 
reply  to  question  of  Mr.  Lyon,  whether  any  of  the  family  saw  the  man,  he 
said  yes,  his  aunt  and  little  boy  Edwin  saw  him.  This  was  the  version  of 
the  matter  that  was  given  by  the  prisoner  himself.  So  that  the  question 
for  you  to  decide  is,  whether  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  you  are  satisfied 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  man  who  called  himself  Lum  Johnson 
and  murderer  of  Conoley-  is  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  it  was  a  disguised  man — a  white  man  disguised  as  a  negro — all  of 
the  Conoley  family  thought  so,  and  in  proof  of  this  John  A.  Conolej',  the 
brother  of  Simeon  Conoley,  took  out  warrants  before  D.  E.  McBr^'de,  J.  P., 
for  two  white  men,  Millard  Moore  and  one  Purnell,  and  N.  A.  McDougald, 
the  brother-in-law  of  Simeon  Conoley  and  the  father  of  the  prisoner,  took 
out  a  warrant  for  John  Kelly,  another  white  man, — all  of  these  warrants 
being  issued  on  the  29tli  of  April,  about  one  week  after  the  murder.  So  foul 
a  murder  caused  the  neighborhood  to  be  stirred  from  one  side  to  the  other. 
Every  citizen  was  shocked  beyond  expression  at  the  horrible  murder.  Every 
man  felt  called  upon  to  investigate  and  ferret  out  the  inhuman  crime  and 
ascertain  if  possible  who  did  it.  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes  told  that  she  saw  a 
strange  looking  man  on  the  afternoon  of  the  21st  of  April  about  one-quarter 
of  a  mile  of  Sim.  Conolej-'s  going  in  that  direction.  He  was  black  and  had 
on  a  duster  and  slouch  hat.    John  Conoley,  colored,  told  that  he  saw  a  man 


172  IJie  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

that  same  afternoon  coming  from  towards  Shandon  and  going  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Sim.  Conolej'^'s  and  about  two  miles  from  Conoley's,  that  he  was  a 
black-looking,  curious  man;  that  he  wore  a  duster,  wide  brim  hat  and  spec- 
tacles, and  had  someting  strapped  on  his  back;  that  he  spoke  to  him  (John 
Conoley)  and  called  him  boss  and  asked  him  if  his  dog  would  bite,  and  the 
way  to  Fa3etteville,  etc.  Neill  Smith  told  that  he  saw  a  man  pass  his  gate 
about  2  o'clock  of  the  afternoon  of  that  day  coming  from  the  direction  of 
Shandon  and  going  in  the  direction  of  Sim.  Conoley's,  that  he  wore  a 
long  duster  and  had  bundles  and  long  hair;  looked  like  a  painted  man;  had 
his  hat  pulled  down  on  one  side  next  to  witness;  that  he  did  not  speak;  that 
he  wore  spectacles  and  whiskers  and  was  a  man  about  the  size  of  the  pris- 
oner; that  he  thought  the  man  had  on  a  wig.  This  w^as  two  miles  from 
Shandon  and  about  five  miles  from  Conoley's.  Mrs.  Humphrey  told  that 
she  saw  a  man  pass  her  house,  coming  from  the  direction  of  Shandon  and 
going  in  the  direction  of  Sim.  Conoley's  and  by  Neill  Smith's,  about  one 
and  one-fourth  miles  from  Shandon;  that  he  was  a  black-looking  man  of 
slight  build,  wore  a  duster  and  had  bundles,  looked  like,  tied  up  in  an  oil-cloth; 
had  whiskers  and  spectacles.  Henry  Smith,  colored,  told  that  he  saw  the 
man  between  Mr.  Jeff.  Cobb's  and  Mrs.  Humphrey's,  coming  from  the  direc- 
tion of  Shandon  and  going  in  the  direction  of  Sim.  Conoley's,  and  that  he 
wore  a  duster;  was  all  blacked  up,  but  he  saw  white  spots  on  the  back  of 
his  neck  and  on  his  hands,  and  told  Mr.  Jeif.  Cobb,  whom  he  met  immedi- 
ately after,  that  that  was  a  painted  man.  Fannie  Mears  told  that  she  saw 
the  man  between  Mr.  Jebb.  Cobb's  and  Shandon,  coming  from  the  direction 
of  Shandon  and  going  down  the  road  towards  Mrs.  Humphrey's;  that  he 
had  a  duster  and  "toted"  a  valise;  was  awful  black-looking;  had  long  hair 
and  moustache  and  side-locks. 

Mr.  Jeif.  Cobb  told  that  he  was  a  short  distance  from  the  road  leading 
from  Shandon  to  Sim.  Conoley's  and  that  he  saw  a  man  with  a  long  duster 
and  packages  passing  the  road  about  i  o'clock  coming  from  the  direction  of 
Shandon  and  going  in  the  direction  of  Sim.  Conoley's — this  was  about  one 
mile  from  Shandon.  Mr.  Cobb  also  told  that  he  saw  Fannie  Mears  and 
Henry  Smith  meet  the  man  and  that  Henry  Smith  came  right  to  him  and 
told  him  that  he  was  a  painted  man;  that  he  saw  white  on  the  back  of  his 
neck  and  on  his  knuckles.  This  stranger,  who  was  not  recognized  by  anyone 
who  saw  him  and  who  was  thus  traced  to  within  one-fourth  of  a  mile  of  Sim. 
Conoley's  on  that  day,  becomes  an  object  of  the  greatest  interest  in  that 
community.  Who  was  he?  Where  did  he  come  from?  These  are  the 
questions  asked  by  everybody,  and  these  are  the  questions  which  present 
themselves  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  and  which  you  mu.st  decide. 
Neill  Smith,  a  public-spirited  citizen,  akindandobligingneighbor,  whose  cool, 
clear  head  and  whose  brave,  manly  heart  would  be  a  blessing  to  any  commu- 
nity, with  his  neighbors  and  friends,  all  conclude  that  this  mysterious 
stranger  must  be  investigated  and  traced  up  if  possible.  Accordingly  investi- 
gation is  started.  Where  was  the  stranger  first  seen  ?  Near  Mr.  Jeff,  Cobb's, 
one  mile  from  Shandon.  coming  from  direction  of  Shandon.  What  time  of  day  ? 
About  I  o'clock.  Inquiry  is  made  at  Shandon,  bvit  no  such  man  was  seen 
there;  no  such  man  was  .seen  or  could  be  heard  of  anywhere  else  in  the  com- 
munity. It  was  about  the  time  of  day  that  the  freight  train  from  Maxton  to 
Fayetteville  on  the  C.  F.  &.  Y.  V.  R.  R.  passed  Shandon.  Did  this  strange- 
looking  man  come  on  the  train  ?  W.  C.  McPhail,  Esq.,  who  was  agent  at 
the  depot  at  Shandon,  told  that  he  saw  a  man  leave  .Shandon  going  up  the 
road  immediatel}'-  after  arrival  of  freight  train  wearing  a  long  duster;  he  was 
30  yards  from  him  and  did  not  recognize  him;  he  was  going  in  the  direction 
of  Sim.  Conoley's  and  on  the  road  by  Jeff.  Cobb's,  Mrs.  Humphrey's  and 
Neill  Smith's. 

Charlotte  Dumas,  a  colored  woman,  who  lives  at  Shandon,  saw  a  nice- 
looking  man  with  long  duster,  and  had  a  gripsack,  going  in  direction  of 
W.  C.  McPhail's;  he  was  walking  down  the  railroad,  and  immediately  after 
arrival  of  freight  train  and  on  the  day  Sim.  Conoley  was  killed;  he  was  a 
stanger  to  her;  was  a  white  man.  What  become  of  this  white  man  ?  Jeff. 
Cobb,  Fannie  Mears,  Henry  Smith,  Mrs.  Humphrey  and  Neill  Smith  were 
all  on  the  road  upon  which  he  started  from  Shandon  and  about  the  time  of 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  173 

da}'  that  he  would  pass  leaving  Shandon  at  the  time  he  did,  but  none  of 
them  saw  the  white  man.  What  became  of  him  ?  He  disappeared  between 
Shandon  and  JefF.  Cobb's,  which  places  are  about  one  mile  apart.  Rememr 
ber  just  here  that  about  half  of  this  distance  is  woods,  the  other  half  is 
cleared.  Now  this  is  something  the  community  cannot  understand.  A 
white  man  with  duster  and  grip-sack  start  up  the  road — a  public  road- -that 
leads  by  Jeff.  Cobb's,  Mrs.  Humphrey's  and  Neill  Smith's,  in  the  direction  of 
Sim.  Conoley's,  and  no  one  sees  him  afterwards — but  a  black  man  appeared 
in  his  place — a  painted  man,  in  the  language  of  the  witnesses,  so  that  the 
trace  becomes  nrore  and  more  interesting.  Nobody  saw  this  white  man  at 
Shandon  except  Charlotte  Dumas  and  W.  C.  McPhail,  and  they  saw  him,  it 
will  be  remembered,  just  after  arrival  of  freight  train,  about  12  or  i  o'clock; 
so  that  all  concluded  the  man  must  have  come  on  that  train.  Who  was  the 
conductor?  W.  O.  Lockamy  was  the  conductor,  and  he  is  interviewed  by 
the  neighbors  and  friends  of  poor  vSimeon  Conoley.  Did  you  have  any 
passenger  or  passengers  on  your  train  that  arrived  at  Shandon  on  the  21st 
day  of  April  about  12  or  i  o'clock?  Yes,  one.  Who  was  he?  Who  was 
he?  Capt.  Lockamy  told  tliat  the  man  was  a  stranger  to  him;  that  he  got 
on  the  train  at  the  water-tank  near  Maxton,  on  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.;  that  he 
had  .some  kind  of  bundle  and  a  duster.  The  man  said  he  wanted  to  go  to  Shan- 
don. Capt.  Lockamy  told  him  that  he  had  better  go  on  passenger  train; 
that  the  passenger  train  would  pass  him  at  Wakulla,  that  he  would  get 
there  earlier,  but  the  man  replied  that  he  was  not  in  a  hurrj'  and  he  wanted  to 
go  on  the  freight  train;  that  he  got  on  board,  paid  his  fare  to  Shandon  and  had 
but  little  to  say — looked  down  on  the  floor.  Capt.  Lockamy  rode  in  car  with 
the  man  to  Wakulla,  the  second  station  from  Maxton,  and  then  went  on  his 
engine  until  after  they  got  to  Shandon,  as  bis  duties  required,  so  that  he 
did  not  see  him  any  more. 

Mr.  Rufus  DeVane  got  on  Capt.  Lockamy's  train  that  day  at  Wakulla, 
and  found  onl}'  one  passenger.  This  passenger  was  a  stranger  to  DeVane, 
but  talked  to  him  about  business  at  Red  Springs,  and  about  how  long 
the  train  would  stop  there,  and  DeVane  told  him  that  he  was  good  for 
half  a  day  on  the  train,  though  DeVane  did  not  remember  whether  he  told 
him  where  he  v^-as  going  or  not.  DeVane  says  now,  after  looking  at  the 
prisoner,  that  he  cannot  swear  that  he  is,  or  is  not,  the  man;  that  the  pris- 
oner does  not  look  like  the  man  he  saw;  that  the  prisoner  has  whiskers  all 
over  his  face,  and  the  man  he  saw  had  only  a  light  moustache,  etc.;  that  he 
never  saw  the  man  before  that  day.  So  that  the  question  becomes  more  and 
more  interesting,  who  is  the  man  ?  Did  anybody  see  him  get  on  at  the 
water-tank  at  ]\taxton  ?  Mr.  K.  H.  Cole  is  Section  Master  on  the  Cape  Fear 
and  Yadkin  Valle}'  Railroad,  his  section  covering  that  portion  of  the  road 
by  Maxton  and  for  some  distance  on  both  sides.  He  told  that  he  was  at  his 
work  on  that  road  about  one  hundred  and  fift}^  3'ards  from  the  water-tank  on 
the  morning  of  the  2i.st  of  April;  it  was  before  the  freight  train  passed.  A 
man — a  stranger  to  Cole — came  up  and  asked  him  what  time  the  Fayetteville 
train  passed,  would  it  stop  long  enough  ac  the  tank  for  him  to  get  aboard  ? 
The  man  had  a  duster,  vali.se  and  bundles;  he  had  only  a  moustache,  no 
other  whiskers.  Mr  Cole  says  that  he  can't  swear  positively  that  the  pris- 
oner at  the  Bar  is  the  man  he  saw  that  morning,  but  his  best  impression  is 
that  he  is  the  same  man.  Mr.  Cole  asked  him  what  his  name  was,  and 
the  man  said  McDougald;  where  he  lived,  and  he  said  at  or  near  Laurinburg. 
Mr.  Cole  then  asked  him  if  he  was  related  to  Capt.  McDougald,  of  Cumber- 
land, and  the  man  replied  no.  Now,  it  is  possible  that  Mr.  Cole  might  be 
mistaken  about  the  identity,  there  were  other  McDougalds  at  Laurinburg, 
and  he  only  had  a  short  conversation  with  him;  the  man  only  had  moustache 
then  and  has  whi.skers  all  over  his  face  now,  and  Mr.  Cole  has  not  seen  him 
from  that  day  until  he  .saw  him  in  custody  at  Lumberton  a  few  weeks  ago; 
but  Tom  Smith,  colored,  testifies  that  he  was  pumping  at  the  water-tank 
that  morning,  saw  the  man  talking  to  Mr.  Cole,  and  that  he  came  right  on  to 
the  water-tank  and  got  on  Capt.  Lockamy's  train.  Remember  that.  Did 
any  one  else  see  him  ?  Yes,  Lizzie  McCoy,  a  colored  woman  who  lives  near 
Laurinburg,  told  that  she  saw  Mr.  McDougald  at  the  water-tank  that  morn- 
ing,  and  that  she  knew   him,   had    known    him    since    she   was   a  girl. 


174  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

You  may  assume,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  her  character  cannot  be 
questioned,  because  it  has  not  been,  with  all  the  diligence  of  the 
prisoner's  counsel  and  his  friends;  no  one  can  be  found  who  can  say 
aught  against  her,  so  that  j'ou  have  her  testimony  uncontradicted  and 
unimpeached  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  man  who  got  on  the  train 
at  the  water-tank  at  Maxton  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  of  April  was 
none  other  than  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar.  T.  E.  Phillips  told  that  he  saw  the 
prisoner  at  the  water-tank  at  Maxton  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  of  April 
before  Capt.  Lockamy's  train  got  there;  that  he  he  had  known  him  for  years 
and  that  he  spoke  to  him  and  asked  him  where  he  was  going,  and  that  pris- 
oner told  him  he  was  going  over  on  the  Cape  Fear  and  Yadkin  Valley  Rail- 
road, and  that  when  the  freight  train,  Capt.  Lockamy's  train,  passed  the 
engine  that  he  (Phillips)  was  on  at  Red  Springs  he  saw  the  prisoner  on  the 
car.  But  it  is  said  on  the  other  side  that  before  an  engine  can  leave  the  yard 
in  Fayetteville  it  is  the  duty  of  the  engineer  to  register  the  fact,  and  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  telegraph  operator  to  record  the  time  of  the  departure  of 
the  engine,  and  it  is  in  testimony  that  the  records  of  the  Company  do  not 
show  that  any  engine  or  special  train  was  registered  as  leaving  Fayetteville 
on  morning  of  21st  April,  and  therefore  you  must  disbelieve  Mr.  Phillips. 
Capt.  Clark,  one  of  the  defendant's  witnesses,  says  Mr.  Phillips  is  a  man  of 
good  character,  and  now  the  only  question  is  whether  you  will  believe  the 
records  or  Mr.  Phillips.  As  we  will  see  further  on,  if  you  will  allow  the 
records  to  control  rather  than  sworn  testimony,  3'ou  will  have  to  discard  the 
testimony  of  Capt.  D.  E.  l^IcNair.  But  if  you  discard  the  testiraonj^  of  Phil- 
lips entirely,  j'ou  have  the  evidence  of  Lizzie  McCoy  and  K.  H.  Cole  to  es- 
tablish this  fact.  Is  there  anything  else?  Why  Capt.  McNair  and  Horace 
Jones  both  say  that  prisoner  left  his  home  at  Laurinburg  on  the  morning 
of  the  2ist  of  April.  Horace  Jones  said  he  had  rubber  coat  on  his  arm  and 
package  wrapped  in  paper. 

Now  these  witnesses  say  that  prisoner  did  not  stop  at  Maxton  that 
morning  but  that  he  went  on  to  Alma.  Where  is  Alma?  It  is  between 
Maxton  and  Wilmington,  and  two  miles  only  from  Maxton.  What  time  did 
he  get  there?  At  7:10  A.  m.  according  to  Capt.  McNair,  so  that  there  is 
nothing  inconsistent  in  this  with  the  fact  that  he  got  on  that  train  at  the 
water-tank  at  Maxton,  as  the  train  did  not  pass  the  water-tank  until  8:35 
A.  M.,  giving  the  prisoner  one  hour  and  twenty-five  minutes  to  go  from  Alma 
to  Maxton — a  distance  of  only  2X  miles.  Mr.  A.  J.  Cottingham  told  that 
he  was  at  Laurinburg  on  morning  of  21st  of  April  and  that  he  went  down  on 
freight  train  that  morning  to  Maxton,  leaving  Laurinburg  about  6  o'clock; 
that  prisoner  was  one  of  the  passengers  on  the  train  and  that  he  had  a  duster 
and  valise;  that  he,  Cottingham,  stopped  at  Maxton,  and  he  did  not  know 
what  became  of  the  prisoner.  But  this  is  an  important  point  in  ''.he  case;  is 
there  any  other  evidence  throwing  light  on  the  question  ?  Mr.  Luther  McCor- 
mac,  a  man  whose  character  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  impeached,  says  that 
on  the  morning  of  the  21st  of  April  last,  when  freight  train  arrived  at  Max- 
ton from  Laurinburg,  he  went  to  the  train;  that  he  kept  a  boarding-house 
and  went  to  see  if  there  was  anyone  getting  off,  and  that  he  met  D.  A.  Mc- 
Dougald, whom  he  knew  well,  shook  hands  with  him  and  talked  to  him, 
that  he  had  a  duster,  valise  and  some  bundles,  and  that  he  (prisoner)  told 
him  he  was  going  over  on  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.  that  morning,  and  asked  where 
he  could  leave  his  bundles  until  the  train  would  arrive.  There  is  no  doubting 
the  testimony  of  Ltxther  McCormac — his  character  is  too  well  established  to 
be  questioned  even  by  the  zealous  counsel  for  the  prisoner.  Mr.  J.  B.  Sellers 
and  Mr.  W.  W.  McGirt  both  live  at  Alma;  they  were  both  introduced  as  wit- 
nesses for  the  prisoner,  and  they  both  testified  that  they  had  never  seen  the 
prisoner  at  Alma  before  Wednesday,  the  22nd  day  of  April.  The  pris- 
oner's brother,  John  McDougald,  who  has  been  here  during  this 
trial,  and  is  now  I  venture  to  say,  did  not  see  the  prisoner  at 
Alma  on  the  morning  of  the  21st;  if  he  had  you  know  he  would 
have  been  anxious  to  tell  you  so.  Now,  if  prispner  went  to  Alma 
that  morning,  what  became  of  him  ?  The  evidence  in  this  case  shows, 
and    unmistakeably,    that    he  went    back  to    Maxton   and  to  the  water- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  17 S 

tank  and  to  Shandon.  He  told  Luther  McCormac  that  he  was  going  over  on 
that  road  that  morning.  Mr.  Cole  tells  you  that  a  man  did  go  who  said  that 
his  name  was  McDougald  and  lived  at  or  near  I^aurinburg,  and  after  seeing 
prisoner  to-day,  although  he  wears  whiskers  all  over  his  face  now — which,  as 
I  will  show  you  further  on,  is  part  of  his  disguise — while  he  only  had  mous- 
tache then,  that  his  best  impression  is  that  prisoner  is  the  same  man 
that  he  saw  that  morning,  and  Lizzie  McCoy  tells  you  he  is  the  man. 
How  can  you  doubt  it?  How  can  you  find  otherwise?  But  is  this  all? 
James  McBr3'de  saw  prisoner  on  Friday  after  the  murder.  I  hope,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  that  3'ou  all  know  Mr.  INIcBryde — it  is  a  privilege  to 
know  him,  honest,  generous  man  that  he  is.  Living  twelve  or  thirteen 
miles  from  the  place  where  this  murder  was  committed,  yet  anxious  to  do 
what  he  could  to  find  out  who  did  it  and  to  aid  the  investigation,  he  told  pris- 
oner that  he  would  inform  him  of  any  information  that  he  could  gather  con- 
cerning the  murder,  and  on  the  Sundaj'  following,  having  heard  that  it  was 
thought  that  the  man  who  got  on  the  freight  train  at  the  tank  at  Maxton 
on  morning  of  2ist  April,  went  to  Shandon  and  then  up  the  road  towards 
Simeon  Conoley's,  and  disguised  himself  as  a  negro,  was  the  man  who  mur- 
dered poor  Conolej',  true  to  his  word  he  went  immediately  to  see  the  pris- 
oner to  communicate  the  news  to  him,  and  told  prisoner  at  his  home  at 
Laurinburg  on  that  Sunday,  26th  April,  that  the  whole  community  believed 
that  the  man  who  got  on  the  train  at  that  tank  that  morning  was  the  man. 
Mr.  McBryde  never  dreamed  that  prisoner  was  the  man,  but  expected  and 
had  a  right  to  expect  that  prisoner  would  help  to  discover  who  it  was  that 
got  on  the  train,  so  as  to  ferret  out  the  murderer  ot  his  uncle.  But  what  did 
prisoner  say?  "No,  my  father  thinks  he  has  the  man  spotted;"  and,  when 
asked  by  Mr.  McBryde  who  it  was,  he  replied  "that  he  did  not  care  to  tell." 
If  there  was  any  doubt  about  his  being  the  man  before,  I  ask  you  if  his  con- 
duct on  this  occasion  would  not  remove  it?  But  let  us  pursue  this  matter 
one  step  further :  On  Wednesdaj',  29th  April,  prisoner,  with  his  uncle,  John 
Conoley,  went  to  Duncan  E.  McBryde's,  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Robeson 
county,  to  take  out  warrants  for  the  arrest  of  Millard  Moore  and  Reuben 
Purnell,  charging  them  with  the  murder  of  Sim.  Conoley;  and  after  the 
warrants  were  issued  Mr.  McBr3'de,  in  a  jocular  manner,  remarked  to  pris- 
oner "they  are  about  to  put  this  crime  on  you;  they  say  that  the  man 
who  got  on  the  freight  train  on  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.  at  the  water-tank  at 
Maxton  is  the  man  who  committed  the  murder  and  that  you  fit  descrip- 
tion of  that  man,  and  they  say  further  that  you  attempted  to  poison  Sim. 
Conole}^  some  time  last  j-ear;"  and  the  prisoner  replied  "how  is  that  ?  I 
can  show  where  I  was  that  day  :  I  went  to  Maxton  to  rent  a  store  and  then 
went  horn  on  the  day  train,"  all  of  which  reply  was  a  falsehood.  He  was 
at  Maxton  on  Wednesday,  the  day  after  the  murder,  and  went  to  Laurin- 
burg on  that  da}^  but  as  has  alreadj'  been  shown  you,  from  the  evidence  in 
this  case,  he  only  passed  through  Maxton  on  Tuesday  morning.  Now,  if 
he  had  not  been  the  man,  instead  of  stopping  by  saying  that  he  could  show 
where  he  was,  he  v.'ould  have  joined  the  friends  of  poor  Conolej'  in  finding 
out  who  it  was  that  did  get  on  the  train  at  that  place  on  that  fatal  da}'.  But 
the  warrants  were  issued,  ?.s  has  already  been  said,  on  Wednesday,  and  the 
trial  of  these  parties,  to- wit:  Moore,  Purnell  and  Kelly,  was  to  take  place  on 
the  Friday  following,  and  where  do  \'ou  find  the  prisoner?  At  the  trial 
helping  the  kind  neighbors  and  friends  of  Conole\'  to  investigate  and  ferret 
ovit  this  murder?  Not  he.  You  find  him  a  fugitive,  leaving  his  home  and 
friends  and  telling  falsehoods  about  where  he  was  going  and  about  some 
clothes  as  we  shall  presently  see.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  have  you,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  any  reasonable  doubt  about  the  fact  that  the  prisoner  is  the 
man  who  got  on  that  train  at  that  water  tank  on  Tuesda\-  morning,  21st  April? 
Have  you  any  rea.sonable  donbt  about  the  prisoner's  guilt  as  charged  in  the  in- 
dictment in  this  case?  fientlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  been  exceedingly 
patient  in  this  ca.se,  and  I  know  that  you  are  very  tired,  and  I  promise  you 
that  I  will  not  detain  you  much  longer,  but  there  are  other  matters  to  which 
I  must  call  your  attention.  On  Wednesday  morning,  the  22nd  of  April,  the 
day  after  this  awful  crime  was  committed,  soiue  clothes  were  found  at  Camp- 


176  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

bell's  Bridge — they  were  found  early  in  the  morning  before  sunrise — an  un- 
dershirt, pair  of  pants,  old  hat,  package  of  lampblack,  and  pieces  of  looking 
glass  that  had  been  broken.  Whose  clothes  were  they  ?  No  witness  has 
told  you,  either  for  the  State  or  the  prisoner,  but  several  witnesses  tell  you 
they  were  found  there.  Hector  Gilchrist  testified  that  he  was  driving  a 
wagon  for  Mr.  A.  M.  McKinnon,  and  on  that  Wednesday  morning  went  unu- 
sually earl3'^  to  feed  his  team  so  that  he  could  make  an  earlier  start,  that  he 
had  to  cross  Campbell's  Bridge,  and  that  within  8  or  lo  feet  of  the  road  he 
saw  these  clothes,  they  were  on  the  ground  near  a  raft  of  timber  vihich  was 
in  the  river.  Now  remember  that  this  (Campbell's)  bridge  is  between  Sim. 
Conolej-'s  and  Maxton — about  14  miles  from  Conoley's  and  about  4  miles 
from  Maxton.  Hector  Gilchrist  went  to  the  mill  and  told  the  hands  there 
about  it,  and  thej-^  all  go  to  see  the  clothes;  they  put  them  in  care  of  Geo. 
Blue,  the  fireman  at  the  engine,  and  he  hung  them  up  in  the  oil-room;  and 
James  McBrj'de  went  to  see  them  and  other  people  went  to  see  them,  they 
were  there  on  exhibition  in  the  oil-room  from  Wednesday  until  Saturday, 
On  Friday,  24th  April,  James  McBryde  boarded  the  afternoon  train  at  Max- 
ton on  his  way  to  Lumberton ;  he  saw  the  prisoner  on  the  train  and  went  to 
him  and  asked  whether  he  had  learned  anything  about  the  murder  of  Sim. 
Conoley  and  he  replied  no,  that  Conoley  was  his  uncle,  but  the  prisoner  did 
not  seem  communicative.  Mr.  McBryde  assured  him  of  his  syinpath}^  and 
that  he  would  do  anything  he  could  to  help  him  investigate  the  matter,  and 
that  he  would  let  him  know  anj^  information  that  he  could  get  relative  to  the 
matter.  Prisoner  asked  McBrj-de  what  people  were  saying  about  the  murder 
— who  was  suspected?  McBryde  told  him  he  believed  Millard  Moore  did  it, 
and  prisoner  replied  that  he  thought  so  too,  and  asked  McBryde,  "can  a 
man  be  convicted  on  circumstantial  evidence?"  Mr.  McBryde  told  him  that 
he  thought  so,  and  that  some  clothes  had  been  found  at  Campbell's  Bridge 
on  Wednesday  moning  that  were  suspicious  and  might  throw  some  light  on 
the  case,  and  that  he,  the  prisoner,  ought  to  go  and  get  them.  The  prisoner 
went  to  Wilmington  that  evening,  but  as  the  train  that  he  was  on  arrived  in 
Wilmington  the  night  train  left  for  Charlotte,  and  the  prisoner  did  not  stop  in 
W^ilmington,  but  simply  changed  cars  and  went  right  back  home.  Mr.  J.  C. 
Mercer,  who  was  in  Wilmington  on  that  Friday  and  who  came  up  to  Lau- 
rinburgh  on  that  Friday  night,  saw  him  and  came  home  with  him.  Prison- 
er's counsel  say  that  he  did  not  stop  in  Wilmington,  but  came  immediately 
back  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  Campbell's  bridge  after  the  clothes.  I  told 
you.  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  no  witness  had  testified  that  those  clothes 
were  the  prisoner's  and  that  they  were  worn  by  him  while  killing  Sim.  Con- 
oley, but  I  tell  you  now  that  there  is  one  man  here  who  did. know  them  and 
who  knows  now — that  man  is  the  prisoner.  If  they  were  his  and  he  wore 
them  he  would  be  anxious  to  get  hold  of  them  so  as  to  make  way  with  them, 
so  that  the}^  could  never  be  produced  on  any  trial  against  him  or  anyone 
else.  If  they  were  not  his  clothes  he  would  be  anxious  to  get  them  and 
keep  them  and  show  them  to  everyone  and  have  them  at  the  trial  of  any 
person  accused  of  the  crime,  so  as  to  identify  the  party  or  throve'  light  on  the 
Investigation — that  is  if  he  thought  there  was  any  connection  between  the 
clothes  and  the  murder.  Now  what  is  prisoner's  evidence  with  reference  to 
the  clothes?  On  Saturday  morning  he  went  to  Campbell's  Bridge  after 
them.  George  Blue,  who  was  fireman  at  the  engine  and  who  had  charge  of 
the  clothes  and  had  them  hung  up  in  the  oil-room  where  they  were  unmoles- 
ted from  Wednesdajf  morning  until  Saturday,  had  to  go  from  engine  to  store 
after  some  leather  just  as  prisoner  was  coming  up.  George  Blue  had  seen 
the  clothes  hanging  up  in  oil-room  five  minutes  before  he  saw  the  pris- 
oner. The  prisoner  come  by  the  oil-room  and  was  about  there  when 
George  Blue  returned.  No  one  else  had  been  there  but  the  prisoner. 
When  Blue  returned  prisoner  asked  him  if  he  was  the  fireman?  Blue 
replied  that  he  was,  and  the  prisoner  asked  him  to  see  some  clothes 
that  he  had  heard  were  found.  Blue  told  him  they  were  in  the  oil-house 
and  went  to  show  them,  and  when  he  got  there  the  clothes  could  not  be 
found.  Blue  looked  and  looked  for  them  and  finalh'  found  them  hidden 
under  the  oil-house.    Wasn't  this  strange?    How  did  it  happen  ju.st  as  the 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  177 

prisoner  got  to  where  the  clothes  were  they  were  hidden?  Did  he  do  it? 
There  was  no  one  else  there  to  do  it,  and  they  were  there  undisturbed  all 
the  time  until  he  came.  If  he  did  hide  them,  why  did  he  do  it?  Ask  j-our- 
selves  that  question,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  because  it  must  be  answered. 
Well,  he  asked  Geo.  Blue  what  had  they  better  do  with  the  clothes?  George 
told  him  to  take  them  and  he  did  take  them.  On  his  way  back  to  Laurin- 
burg  Mr.  McKinnon  saw  him  and  stopped  him  and  asked  him  to  see  the 
clothes,  and  he  showed  them  to  him  and  remarked  to  Mr.  McKinnon  that 
the  man  who  wore  the  pants  had  been  plowing,  but  Mr.  McKinnon  told  him 
he  though  they  were  finer  than  a  plowman  would  wear.  From  that  day 
until  the  next  Wednesday  no  one  ever  saw  the  clothes.  He  had  them  at 
Laurinburg  where  his  father  and  brothers  and  friends  were,  but  showed 
them  to  none  of  them  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows.  Is  this  the  way  he 
would  have  dealt  with  the  clothes  if  the}-  were  not  his?  On  Wednesday, 
the  29th  of  April,  he  claimed  that  he  carried  the  clothes  to  his  uncle  John 
Conoley's.  On  his  way  there,  at  Antioch,  he  met  Mr.  H.  H.  Hodgin — as 
true  a  man  as  Robeson  county  or  any  other  county  can  boast  of,  who  was 
interested  like  all  other  good  citizens  in  ferreting  out  this  shocking  crime, 
and  Mr.  Hodgin  asked  him  if  he  had  the  clothes,  and  the  prisoner  replied 
yes,  but  did  not  offer  to  show  them,  and  Mr.  Hodgin  remarked  they  are  at 
L  lurinburg,  and  to  this  prisoner  made  no  reply.  About  that  time  Mr.  H. 
E.  Phillips  came  up  and  told  prisoner  that  he  wished  he  could  see  the 
pants,  he  might  know  them,  whereupon  the  prisoner  drove  off  without 
making  any  reply.  Why  this  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner  if  they 
were  not  his  clothes  and  he  was  keeping  them  for  the  purpose  of  using  them 
to  convict  the  suspected  party?  He  claimed  that  he  had  them  in  box  in  his 
road-cart  there,  and  Neill  Conoley,  his  own  witness  and  his  own  cousin,  tes- 
tified that  when  he  got  to  John  Conoley's  they  were  in  road  cart,  and  that  he 
(Neill  Conoley)  saw  them.  After  deceiving  Mr.  Hodgin  as  to  where  the 
clothes  were,  after  virtually  refusing  to  allow  Mr.  Phillips  to  .see  them,  he 
carried  them  to  his  uncle  John  Conoley's,  and  there  he  left  them  in  the  cart  in 
public  road  or  near  public  road,  and  he  and  John  Conoley  went  to  D.  E.  Mc- 
Bryde's.  as  I  have  before  said,  to  take  out  warrants  for  Moore  and  Purnell. 
But  if  Neill  Conoley's  testimony  be  true,  unfortunately  for  the  prisoner  no 
one  would  steal  the  clothes  until  he  returned;  they  were  still  there  in  his 
road-cart.  You  remember  now  that  D.  E.  McBryde,  Esq.,  had  that  same 
evening  told  prisoner  that  he  was  suspected  of  the  crime,  that  the  whole 
community  was  satisfied  that  the  man  who  got  on  train  at  the  water-tank  at 
Maxton  that  Tuesda^^  morning  was  the  guilty  man,  and  that  he  fitted  the 
description  of  that  man,  and  that  it  was  said  that  he  had  tried  to  poison  his 
uncle  last  fall.  Certainly  you  would  now  expect  the  prisoner  to  guard  zeal- 
ously the  clothes  and  keep  them  at  all  hazards,  but  no,  he  went  back  to  John 
Conoley's  and  never  looked  after  the  clothes  at  all.  One  of  John  Conoley's 
son's  called  his  attention  to  them,  and  then  prisoner  asked  John  Conoley  if 
he  thought  they  would  be  safe  in  bugg}^  and  Conoley  replied  that  nothing 
ever  had  been  stolen  there.  Neill  Conoley  testified  further  that  prisoner 
asked  John  Conoley  if  he  might  take  the  clothes  in  the  house  and  that  John 
Conoley  said  no,  the  man  who  wore  those  clothes  killed  Sim.  Cono- 
ley and  he  might  kill  us,  but  that  he  might  put  them  in  barn  or 
crib.  These  stories  of  Neill  are  somewhat  inconsistent,  but  anyway 
the  result  of  it  all  was  that  the  clothe.s  were  left  in  the  buggy,  and  when 
pri.soner  got  up  next  morning  he  went  to  look  for  them  and  they  were 
stolen.  Who  believes  they  were  stolen?  Is  there  a  man  of  you  twelve 
who  believe  it  ?  His  counsel  says  somebody  else  besides  the  prisoner  had  an 
interest  in  those  clothes,  that  somebody  hid  them  at  the  oil-house  at  Camp- 
bell's Bridge  and  shadowed  the  pri.soner  from  the  time  he  took  them  from 
there  until  he  got  to  John  Conoley's,  then  stole  them.  This  is  a  far-fetched 
theory,  it  does  indeed  seem  that  it  was  the  .same  man,  but  from  this  evidence 
are  you  not  bound  to  conclude  that  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  was  the  man  who 
did  it  on  both  occasions?  But  Moore,  Purnell  and  Kelly  were  arrested  and 
were  to  be  tried  on  Friday,  ist  of  May.  Where  was  the  prisoner  that  day? 
Where  would  you  have  been,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  your  uncle  had  been 


178  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

so  foully  murdered?  You  would  have  been  at  the  trial  and  endeavoring  by 
all  proper  means  to  bring  out  all  the  evidence  and  commit  the  parties  if  they 
were  guilty.  But  where  was  the  prisoner  that  day?  He  got  on  the  train  at 
the  water-tank  at  Laurinburg  on  the  C.  C.  R.  R.  and  started  westward.  He 
met  D.  D.  Livingston,  deputy  sheriff  of  Richmond  county,  and  Livingston 
was  surprised  and  told  him  he  was;  that  he  thought  he  wns  at  the  trial  of 
Moore,  Kelly  and  Purnell.  Prison2r  replied  that  he  had  business  to  attend 
to  and  could  not  go,  and  Livingston  asked  him  where  the  clothes  were  and 
prisoner  replied  that  they  were  in  the  office  of  his  attorney,  J.  D.  vShaw,  Jr., 
and  that  they  would  be  at  the  trial  that  day.  Listen,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
this  same  man  who  told  Charles  Purcell,  D.  P.  Johnson  and  others  on  Thurs- 
day that  the  clothes  were  stolen  from  him  at  his  uncle  John  Conoley's, 
itVednesday  night,  2gth  April,  told  D.  D.  Livingston  01  Friday,  ist  daj^  of 
^lay,  that  they  were  in  the  office  of  his  attorney,  J.  D.  Shaw,  Jr.,  at  Laur- 
inburg, and  would  be  at  the  trial.  If  you  had  any  doubt  before  can  you 
have  any  now  as  to  the  fact  that  prisoner  made  way  with  those  clothes  and 
that  they  were  worn  by  him  on  that  fatal  night,  and  that  the}'  would  have 
implicated  him  in  that  crime? 

At  the  place  where  the  clothes  were  found  there  was  a  broken  looking- 
glass;  from  this  it  is  probable  that  the  party  left  the  place  in  haste;  if  the 
prisoner,  that  he  was  frightened  away.  Now  this  brings  us  to  another  cir- 
cumstance in  this  case.  Edgar  Gillespie  testified  that  just  after  light  on 
Wednesday  morning  a  man  came  to  his  house — three-quarters  of  a  mile 
from  Campbell's  Bridge  and  between  it  and  Maxton;  that  the  man  was 
blacked;  that  the  man  asked  for  soap  and  water  and  a  towel  and  he  gave  him 
soap  and  water;  that  the  man's  feet  were  muddy;  that  when  he  took  off  his 
hat  he  (Edgar)  saw  from  his  hair  that  he  was  a  white  man.  After  he  had 
washed  Edgar  offered  to  give  him  a  towel,  but  when  he  saw  his  face  and  saw 
that  it  was  Mr.  MeDougald  he  put  back  the  soiled  towel  and  went  to  his 
trunk  and  got  a  clean  towel.  A  day  or  two  after  that,  and  before  anyone 
ever  heard  or  suspected  that  the  prisoner  was  the  assassin,  Edgar  met  Hec- 
tor Gilchrist,  and  they  were  talking  about  the  clothes  found  at  Camp- 
bell's Bridge  and  how  strange  it  was,  and  Edgar  told  Hector  that  a 
man  blacked  came  up  to  his  house  just  after  light  that  Wednesday  morn- 
jng  and  asked  for  soap  and  water  and  towel,  and  that  when  he  wa.shed 
off  it  was  the  prisoner.  But  they  sa}'  Edgar's  character  is  bad  and  3'ou  must 
not  believe  him.  A.  M.  McKinnon,  the  defendant's  own  witness,  testified 
that  Hector  Gilchrist's  character  is  good.  How  could  Edgar  have  told  Hec- 
tor this  story  if  it  was  not  true,  when  no  mention  had  up  to  that  time  been 
made  of  the  prisoner's  connection  with  the  murder  or  the  clothes?  They 
say  al.so  that  it  is  unreasonable  that  the  prisoner  would  cross  several  streams 
between  Sim.  Conoley's  and  Carapbell's  Bridge  without  bathing,  and  that 
he  would  then  let  anybody  see  him  blacked.  The  theory  ot  the  State  is  that 
the  prisoner's  plan  was  to  make  it  known  that  there  was  a  strange  negro  in 
the  neighborhood;  that  no  one  could  trace  him,  where  he  came  from  and 
where  he  went  to.  That  it  would  all  be  a  "  mysery,"  as  prisoner  told  John 
A.  Currie  that  he  didn't  believe  it  ever  could  be  found  out.  This  is  our 
answer  to  question  asked  by  prisoner's  counsel  why  prisoner  would  appear 
on  such  a  public  road  as  he  did  from  Shandon  to  Sim.  Conoley's,  where  he 
would  be  seen  by  so  many  people.  He  wanted  the  strange  negro  to  be 
seen,  and  if  he  was  seen  at  all  after  the  murder  he  wanted  to  be  seen  as  a 
negro.  It  would  not  do  for  him  to  wash  off  his  disguise  at  the  first  stream, 
because  if  any  one  would  see  him  he  would  have  to  account  for  himself,  so 
that  he  wanted  to  appear  disguised  until  he  got  as  near  as  possible  to  Max- 
ton,  and  then  appear  there  for  the  first  time  Wednesday  morning.  But  why 
did  he  go  to  this  negro's  house  to  bathe?  The  broken  looking-glass  and 
the  clothes  left  so  near  the  public  road  at  Campbell's  Bridge  show  that 
Ihe  left  there  in  haste — that  he  was  frightened  probably  by  Hector  Gil- 
christ, certainly  by  somebody — before  he  could  bathe  and  put  his 
clothes  in  the  river  or  out  of  the  way,  and  he  fled,  daylight  was  upon 
ihim  and  something  had  to  be  done.  He  saw  this  negro's  house,  it  was 
ten   or  twelve   miles    from    Laurinburg,  and   (as   he  thought)   it  was  not 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  179 

probable  that  the  negro  would  know  him,  and,  anjrway,  this  was  all  ha 
could  do.  Edgar  Gillespie  is  not  only  confirmed  by  Hector  Gilchrist  as 
to  this  matter,  where  do  you  next  find  the  prisoner?  Capt.  Powers  said 
that  when  his  train,  the  freight  train  from  Laurinburg  to  Wilmington,  ^ot 
to  Maxton  at  half-past  six  o'clock  Wednesday  morning  that  prisoner  was 
there  at  Maxton,  crouched  up  on  the  platform  at  depot,  so  that  he  is  con- 
firmed by  prisoner's  whereabouts — about  three  and  one-fourth  miles  from 
where  Edgar  saw  him.  He  is  also  confirmed  by  prisoner's  conduct  in  refer- 
ence to  the  clothes,  which  I  argue  established  the  fact  that  they  were  his; 
but  I  will  not  repeat.  But  what  else  i*  On  Wednesday  morning,  22nd  April, 
as  I  before  stated,  Capt.  Powers  found  the  prisoner  crouched  up  on  a  platform 
at  depot  at  Maxton.  He  got  on  the  freight  train  and  went  to  Alma,  getting 
there  about  7  o'clock.  Mr.  Herring  was  on  that  train  with  him  and  told  you 
that  when  he  got  off  at  Alma  he  appeared  stiff  and  walked  like  an  old  man. 
That  was  a  long  tramp.  Remember  it  was  eight  miles  from  Shandon  to 
Sim.  Conoley's  and  about  eighteen  miles  from  Sim.  Conoley's  to  Maxton—: 
a  long,  wearj-  tramp  in  the  dead  of  night,  and  if  prisoner  is  the  man  who  did 
it,  he  had  cause  to  be  stiff  and  "hobble"  like  an  old  man.  Prisoner  re- 
mained at  Alma  for  two  or  three  hours,  saw  his  brother,  John  Sellers  and 
W.  W.  McGirt.  Remember,  now,  this  was  April  22nd,  that  these  parties  did 
not  see  him  Tuesday,  April  21st,  and  then  he  went  to  Maxton  and  then  to 
Laurinburg.  When  Geo.  Currie,  colored,  carried  a  note  to  Laurinburg  to 
inform  prisoner  that  his  uncle  was  killed  he  found  him  at  home  with  his 
shoes  off  in  his  shirt  sleeves;  that  was  Wednesday  afternoon,  he  was 
"resting."  After  he  got  that  note  he  went  to  James  &  McRae's  store 
and  asked  his  friend  and  daily  associate,  J.  C.  Robbins,  for  slippers 
and  other  things  that  indicated  that  they  were  for  a  corpse,  and  Robbins 
asked  him  whether  anyone  was  dead.  Prisoner  replied,  yes,  man  was 
killed  on  my  place  last  night.  Prisoner  then  told  G.  S.  McMillan,  who  was 
clerk  in  same  store,  and  his  friend  and  daily  companion,  that  he  was  very* 
tired,  that  he  (prisoner)  had  gone  to  Wilmington  the  day  before  (Tuesday,. 
April  2ist,)  on  the  freight  train  and  had  come  back  Tuesday  night  on 
passenger  train  and  stopped  over  at  Maxton;  but  that  there  was  something 
worse  than  that  ahead  of  him,  he  had  just  had  a  note  saying  that  his  tenant 
had  been  killed  the  night  before  and  that  he  had  to  go  and  see  about  it.  Mr. 
McMillan  asked  him  whether  his  tenant  was  white  or  black,  and  he  said  he 
was  white.  I  simply  call  your  attention,  in  passing,  to  ttie  fact  that  he 
referred  to  him  as  a  man,  and  as  his  tenant,  and  not  as  his  uncle,  but  I  call 
your  attention  especially  to  the  fact  that  he  said  he  was  very  tired.  Is  this 
denied  ?  Is  this  contradicted  ?  Zealous  counsel  for  prisoner  have  done  some 
reckless  things,  but  they  dared  not  to  question  the  truth  of  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  McMillan ;  his  character  is  be3'ond  reproach  and  you  may  take  without 
any  reserve  all  that  he  says  and  act  upon  it.  What  made  him  tired  ?  That 
long  tramp  of  eight  and  eighteen  miles— twenty-six  miles — would  have  done 
so,  but  what  did  prisoner  say  about  it?  Prisoner  said  he  went  to  Wiming- 
ton  Tuesday  morning  on  freight  train.  What  ?  Yes,  that  he  went  to  Wil- 
mington Tuesday  morning  on  freight  train.  Is  that  true?  Prisoner  was  at 
was  that  time  a  man  of  high  character,  considered  a  christian  gentleman.  He 
not  asked  by  Mr.  McMillan  where  he  was,  but  he  volunteered  to  tell.  What 
does  prisoner's  own  witness  s;vy  about  it  ?  Capt.  McNair  said  he  was  con- 
ductor on  freight  train  that  Tuesdaj'  morning  (21st  April)  and  that  prisoner 
did  not  go  to  Wilmington,  but  got  off  at  Alma,  and  Horace  Jones,  Capt.  Mc- 
Nair's  brakeman,  also  said  that  prisoner  got  off  at  Alma.  Now  then  wh}'  is 
this  christian  gentleman  telling  a  fal.sehood  about  his  whereabouts  that 
day  ?  But  he  also  said  that  he  came  back  on  passenger  train  Tuesday  night. 
Is  that  true?  Capt.  George  Welsh  told  you  that  he  was  conductor  on  that 
train  and  that  it  is  not  true.  Mr.  Nehemiah  told  you  that  he  was  engineer 
on  that  train  and  that  it  is  not  true.  Now  then  you  are  obliged  to  conclude 
that  this  christian  tola  two  falsehoods  about  where  he  was  on  that  fatal 
day. 

Prisoner  also  told  this  same  falsehood  at  the  burial  of  Sim.  Conoley  on 
Thursday  to  Miss  Sallie  Wilkes,  Mr.  John  A.  Currie  and  others.     Remem- 


180  7Jie  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

ber,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  a  short  time  before  this  murder  prisoner 
had  been  acting  the  negro  at  conceits — one  at  Laurinburg  and  one  at 
Mason's  X  Roads;  that  he  had  been  told  he  was  a  good  actor  and  that  his 
friends  could  not  recognize  him.  Remember,  also,  that  prisoner  borrowed  a 
wig  and  whiskers  from  J.  C.  Robbing  about  a  week  before  this  murder.  It 
did  not  necessarily  follow  from  this  that  he  intended  to  kill  his  uncle,  but 
remember  it  and  remember  also  that  J.  C.  Robbins  called  on  prisoner  for  the 
wig  and  wiskers  on  Friday  after  the  murder,  and  that  he  did  not  return 
eithei  until  Tuesday  and  then  only  the  whiskers,  and  told  Mr.  Robbins  that 
the  wig  had  been  lost.  Remember,  also,  that  the  wig  was  red  when  Mr. 
Robbins  gave  it  to  prisoner  and  that  it  was  combed  out  around  the  edges  so 
as  to  make  the  hair  appear  straight  and  long.  Remember,  al.so,  that  Mr. 
Robbins  told  him  how  he  could  change  or  have  changed  the  color  of  the  wig. 
Remember,  also,  that  there  was  a  colored  man  near  L  lurinburg  by  the  name 
of  Luni  Johnson,  and  that  prisoner  knew  him  and  traded  with  him,  and  that 
prisoner  said  at  poor  Conoley's  funeral  that  it  was  not  Lum  Johnson,  that 
he  was  at  his  work,  etc. 

I  have  already  talked  to  you  longer  than  I  expected  and  must  ask  your 
indulgence  only  a  little  longer. 

Counsel  for  prisoner  say  that  no  motive  has  been  shown  for  commission 
of  this  most  unnatural  crime  by  prisoner.  Let  us  look  at  that  for  moment. 
A  few  years  ago  Sim  Conoley's  home  was  mortgaged.  At  the  instance  of 
Miss  Lizzie  Conoley,  his  sister,  that  mortgage  was  taken  up  by  the  prisoner 
at  the  Bar;  his  counsel  say  the  amount  was  $100.00;  from  that  time  the 
prisoner  claimed  to  be  the  owner  of  that  land  and  that  Sim.  Conoley  was  his 
tenant;  from  that  time  he  opened  a  farm  account  with  Phillips  &  MeDou- 
gald and  Sim.  Conoley  as  his  tenant.  That  may  have  been  the  act  of  a 
dutiful  nephew,  and  I  do  not  ask  you  now  to  come  to  any  conclusion 
against  him  because  he  lifted  the  mortgage  on  the  farm  and  claimed  the 
land  as  his  own; but  I  want  you  to  remember  this:  Sometime  after  that,  on 
July  27th,  he  wrote  this  letter  to  Mr.  McLean  : 

"Dear  Sir:  Moore  had  Sim.  and  myself  warranted  for  trespass  on  ten 
acres  of  ground,  I  examined  and  found  it  was  a  trespass  of  about  a  dozen  boxes. 
I  settled  it  with  him  by  paying  $5  00  and  cancelling  the  amount.  What  I 
wanted  to  ask  you  was  this  :  Moore  claims  a  boundary  deed  over  the  land. 
Do  you  know  of  such  a  paper  given  by  vSim.  or  any  of  them.''  I  thought  it 
was  all  bosh  about  such  a  deed;  thej-  all  deny  giving  such  a  deed;  but  you 
know  how  they  are,  you  can  fool  them  to  death. 

Yours  respectfully, 

[Signed]  D.  A.  McDougald." 

This  did  not  necessarily  mean  that  he,  the  prisoner,  would  fool  them  to 
death,  but  it  showed  that  he  considered  them  as  easily  reached,  easily  man- 
aged. 

Now,  on  the  12th  of  la.st  September  Mr.  Roper,  an  Insurance  Agent, 
when  in  Laurinburg,  called  to  see  Mr.  McDougald  on  bvisiness  of  insurance. 
Mr.  McDougald  told  him  that  his  uncle  had  been  talking  to  .some  agent  in 
Fayetteville  about  insurance  on  his  life.  If  I  can  get  hold  of  him  I  will  get 
him  into  your  Company.  Shortly  after  this  he  (prisoner)  wrote  to  this  agent 
at  Tatum,  S.  C,  and  asked  him  what  would  be  the  annual  premium  on 
$5,000.00  on  Sim.  Conoley's  life  ?  In  reply  to  this  card  Mr.  Roper  went  next 
day  to  Laurinburg.  They  calculated  and  ascertained  what  the  premium 
would  be  and  found  that  it  would  be  $239.00  annually  for  twenty  years. 
Prisoner  then  directed  Roper  to  write  up  the  application  and  leave  it  with 
Dr.  Hamer;  that  Sim.  Conoley  would  be  examined  by  the  Doctor,  and  ap- 
plication would  then  be  forwarded  to  Roper.  The  examination  was  made 
and  application  was  forwarded  to  Roper,  and  then  prisoner  wrote  Roper  as 
follows  : 

"You  can  send  me  the  policy  of  insurance.  I  will  remit.  Mr.  Conoley 
arranged  it  with  me  to  remit,  so  you  can  send  or  bring  it  when  you  get  it 
approved." 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  181 

About  ten  days  afterwards  Roper  and  his  partner  went  to  Laiirinburg, 
delivered  the  policy  to  the  prisoner  and  received  from  him  the  first  premiurn, 
$239.00.  Now,  just  think  of  Sim.  Conolej^'s  circumstances,  the  evidenceis 
that  he  was  in  straightened  circumstances,  that  he  had  been  working  tor 
wages,  and  carried  his  rations  on  his  back,  that  he  was  unable  to  raise  a 
$100.00  mortgage  on  his  home,  and  that  prisoner  did  raise  it  and  then  took 
his  home  for  it.  He  was  unable  to  pay  $239  00,  the  first  premium,  much 
less  the  subsequently  accruing  premiums  for  nineteen  years.  Note 
also  that  Conoley  was  then  forty-six  years  of  age  and  in  good 
health.  Who  contracted  for  this  insurance?  Who  paid  the  first 
premium?  Who  took  possession  of  this  policy'*  Who  was  to  pay 
the  subsequently  accruing  premiums?  Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
it  was  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  and  nobod}'  else.  W'as  he  able  to 
do  it?  Was  It  reasonable  that  he  would  do  it?  The  policy,  remember,  was 
in  favor  of  his  aunt  Lizzie.  The  family  at  Sim.  Conoley's  home  consisted 
of  bis  grand-mother,  eighty-five  years  of  age.  Miss  Lizzie  Conoley,  the  sister 
of  Sim.  Conoley,  and  her  son  Edwin.  You  can  judge  about  their  cir- 
cumstances from  the  fact  that  they  gave  up  their  home  for  $100.00.  Now, 
what  was  prisoner's  condition?  His  property  was  estimated  as  worth  from; 
$3,000.00  to  $6,000.00.  Suppose  it  was  worth  $6,000,  he  would  have  been 
doing  a  very  good  business  if  he  realized  $600.00  net.  Do  you  believe  that 
he  would  have  agreed,  in  good  faith,  to  pay  $239.00  per  annum,  very  nearly 
one-half  of  his  income  at  high  estimate,  for  twenty  years,  if  Sim.  Conoley 
lived  so  long,  without  any  interest  in  the  policy,  and  as  a  gift  to  his  aunt? 
Were  you  ever  so  much  disposed  to  put  a  favorable  construction  on  all  of 
prisoner's  acts,  you  must  conclude  that  this  is  just  a  little  too  good.  Fol- 
low me  a  little  further  and  let  us  see  :  The  policy  was  delivered  to  prisoner, 
about  20th  of  September.  On  or  about  ist  December  following  prisoner 
went  to  Sim.  Conoley's  and  spent  the  night.  His  grandmother,  his  aunt 
Lizzie  and  her  son  Edwin  were  there.  In  the  moning  prisoner  and  Sim. 
Conoley  left  in  a  buggy  tog^ether,  and  in  a  short  time  Sim.  Conoley  turned  up 
at  John  Wilkes',  a  neighbors,  and  has  some  candy  which  he  was  eating.  Very 
soon  he  became  violently  sick,  had  convulsions,  and  all  the  sjnuptoms  of 
poi.son  by  strychnine  as  Dr.  Prince  testified.  But  did  prisoner  poison  his 
own  uncle  and  so  soon  after  the  issuing  of  that  policy?  Yes.  You  have  it 
from  the  lips  of  Dr.  Prince,  whose  character  as  a  physician  and  a  man  is  as 
good  as  anybody's,  that  prisoner  went  into  his  ofiice  at  Laurinburg  one  morn- 
ing and  told  him  that  his  tenant,  meaning  Sim.  Conoley,  had  been  poisoned 
by  some  brand\'  drops  which  he,  prisoner,  gave  him,  that  he  had  learned 
this  from  a  letter  from  his  aunt.  When  Dr.  Prince  asked  him  some  days 
afterwards  to  see  the  letter  prisoner  replied  that  he  had  lost  it  or  mislaid  it., 
Now,  then,  how  did  the  strychnine  get  on  the  candy?  Powell  Hill  told 
you  that  he  was  clerk  in  drug  store  at  Laurinburg  in  December  last  and 
that  he  sold  prisoner  some  brandy  drops;  that  some  days  afterwards  hq 
came  in  store  early  one  morning  while  he.  Hill,  was  sweeping  out  the  store 
and  told  Hill  he  wanted  some  candy,  but  would  help  himself;  that  he  went 
back  of  the  counter  and  to  the  bo.x  which  contained  the  brandy  drops.  Hill 
was  sweeping  the  store,  but  pr\sover//o//b/ed  so  long  over  the  box  of  candy,, 
which  was  on  lower  shelf  and  not  far  from  floor,  that  Hill  asked  him  "  can't 
you  get  the  candy  ?"  Prisoner  replied  that  he  believed  he  would  take  some 
out  of  show-case,  which  he  did.  An  hour  or  two  after  that  prisoner  went 
again  to  the  drug  store  and  found  Dr.  Everington,  the  proprietor,  in  and 
told  him  he  wanted  to  buy  some  brandy  drops.  Dr.  Everington  told  him 
that  he  had  one  box  open,  that  was  stale  and  he  would  open  a  new  box  for 
him,  but  prisoner  replied  that  he  wanted  some  out  of  the  box  that  was  open. 
When  Dr.  Everington  put  the  box  of  candy  on  the  counter  prisoner  took  it 
and  walked  immediately  to  Dr.  Prince,  who  was  in  his  office  in  rear  of  drug 
store,  and  .showed  him  white  powder  in  one  corner  of  the  box  and  asked  the 
Doctor  what  it  was?  While  Dr.  Prince  was  examining  it.  Dr.  Everington, 
who  did  not  understand  prisoner's  conduct,  followed  him  in  to  the  Doctor's 
office,  and  then  prisoner  left.  Dr.  Everington  and  Dr.  Prince  both  say  this 
substance  was  strvchnine.     You  will  remember  that  the  conversation  before 


182  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald 

referred  to  between  Dr.  Prince  and  the  prisoner,  in  which  prisoner  told  him 
his  tenant  was  poisoned,  had  occurred  before  that  morning.  Now  then  the 
(question  is  how  did  that  strychnine  get  in  that  box  ?  Dr.  Everington  and 
Powell  Hill  told  you  that  they  did  not  have  any  strychnine  in  that  form 
open  in  the  store,  that  the  only  strychnine  they  had  was  in  crystals,  this 
was  in  powders;  but  they  tell  you  further  that  they  had  before  that  sold 
out  of  that  box  of  candy  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  it.  and  that  nobody 
|iad  ever  been  made  sick.  How  did  it  get  there?  The  theory  of  the  State 
IS  that  prisoner  put  it  there  while  he  was  "'fumbling  ''  in  that  box  that 
itnorning.  On  this  point  also  remember  prisoner's  conduct  when  Duncan  E. 
McBr\'de  told  him  that  he  was  accused  of  the  murder,  and  that  it  was 
charged  that  he  had  poisoned  his  uncle  last  fall.  He  made  no  reply  but  fled 
the  country  as  we  shall  see  further  on.  But  his  counsel  asks  why  did  he  tell 
Dr.  Prince?  Why  did  he  show  the  strychnine?  The  answer  is  that  this 
was  his  attempt  to  cover  up  the  deed,  if  "  Conoley  and  his  family  could  be 
fooled  to  death."  The  grand  jury  might  find  it  out,  and  anyway  it  had  to 
be  explained.  It  would  have  been  a  nice  attention  to  his  aged  grandmother 
or  his  aunt  Lizzie  or  to  little  Edwin  to  have  given  them  candy,  but  instead 
of  that  he  bestows  it  upon  his  uncle  who  was  forty-sixty  years  old.  That  it 
was  poison  and  that  those  who  saw  Sim.  Conoley's  convulsions  knew  it  was 
poison  is  proven  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  fact  that  as  soon  as  Mrs.  John 
Wilkes  saw  Conoley  she  took  all  the  candy  that  Sim.  had  not  eaten  and 
threw  it  in  the  fire.  Now  put  this  insurance  and  this  poisoning  together  and 
form  your  own  conclusions. 

But  his  counsel  say  that  you  ought  not  to  convict  the  prisoner  because 
tip  to  that  time  his  character  was  good — no  one  in  that  country  had  abetter 
character — and  especially  that  you  ought  not  to  convict  him  because  his 
aged  grandmother  testified  that  it  was  not  the  prisoner  who  killed  Sim.  Con- 
oley; that  she  was  in  the  hou.se  and  saw  the  man  pass  ten  feet  from  the  door, 
and  the  wind  blew  his  coat  and  that  she  could  see  his  hips  and  his  shape 
and  that  it  was  not  the  prisoner;  the  man  was  taller  than  Sim.  Conoley,  and 
jthat  pri.soner  is  not  so  tall.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  the  prisoner's 
friends  and  daily  associates  could  not  distinguish  him  on  the  stage  with 
lights  when  he  was  acting  the  negro,  is  it  strange  that  this  poor  old  lady 
would  be  mistaken  ?  Dr.  Lewis  told  that  Mrs.  Effie  Conoley  didn't  see  the 
man,  that  he  asked  all  who  saw  and  knew  the  man,  that  he  asked  all  who 
saw  and  knew  anything  about  it  to  tell  it — that  was  next  day  after  the  mur- 
der. D.  B.  McLauchlin  told  you  that  she  told  him  that  she  did  not  see  the 
tnan,  and  now  I  ask  you  to  remember  that  the  prisoner,  who  had  been  to 
Sim.  Conoley's  after  he  was  killed,  had  been  there  twice — at  his  burial  and 
on  Wednesday,  29th  April — that  he,  the  prisoner,  told  Mr.  Lyon,  on  Friday, 
Jtst  of  May,  that  no  one  saw  the  man  but  his  aunt  Lizzie  and  little  boy 
tedwin.  But.  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  knew  better 
than  his  aged  grandmother  whether  he  was  the  man  who  passed  that  door 
that  night  or  not.  Now  let  us  examine  him  for  a  few  moments  only.  Re- 
member that  Duncan  E.  McBryde  told  him  on  Wednesday,  29th  April,  after 
Warrants  had  been  issued  again.st  three  other  men  charging  them  with  this 
crime,  that  he,  the  prisoner,  was  suspected;  that  the  man  who  got  on  train  at 
that  water  tank  was  the  man,  and  he  answered  the  description,  and  that  he 
t^as  also  charged  with  attempting  to  poison  his  uncle  last  Fall.  Then  what 
does  he  do?  His  character  was  good — has  been  spoken  of  in  this  trial  as  a 
christian  gentleman — any  of  us  might  be  proud  to  have  such  a  character  as 
he  proved.  Just  because  Mr.  McBryde  had  jocularly  made  this  remark  to 
him  he  leaves  home  and  friends  for  parts  unknown,  and  travels  and  travels 
and  travels  until  he  can  travel  no  further — is  at  St.  Louis;  Kansas  City; 
Washington,  Kansas;  Portland,  Oregan;  Albany,  Oregon,  and  other  places, 
peddling  spectacles,  and  when  arrested  was  a  common  laborer  on  a  railroad 
Section.  Changed  his  name.  Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  name  of 
D.  A.  McDouj^fald  was  a  good  name,  any  of  us  might  be  proud  of  it  up  to 
that  time;  and  he  casts  it  aside  and  calls  himself  D.  H.  McLauren,  afugitive 
and  a  vagabond  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Can  this  be  explained  on  any  other 
hypothesis  except  that  he  was  conscious  of  his  guilt  and  afraid  of  the  pun- 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  183 

ishment  that  would  follow  ?  Can  this  conduct,  considering  the  prisoner's 
relations  to  the  deceased,  his  character  and  his  surroundings  at  Laurinourg, 
be  construed  into  anything  else  than  a  confession  of  his  guilt.  Answer  it, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  you  must,  solemnly,  before  God,  and  acquit  the 
prisoner  if  you  can  in  the  face  of  this  evidence.     I  beg  ynu  to  do  it. 

Just  before  prisoner's  flight,  on  Thursday,  30th  April,  the  da}'  after  Mr, 
McBryde  told  hira  he  was  charged,  in  his  desperation  he  wrote  a  note  to  Mr. 
A.  F.  Bizzell,  purporting  to  be  from  his  uncle,  John  Conoly's,  asking  him  to 
go  to  D.  E.  McBryde's  that  night  with  50  picked  men,  that  he  would  be  met; 
that  Millard  Moore,  who  was  under  arrest,  would  be  there — a  deliberate  pro- 
posal to  hnch  an  innocent  man--a  man  who  was  imprisoned  on  that  charge 
until  a  hearing  could  be  had,  when  he  was  discharged,  hoping  in  this  man- 
ner to  keep  attention  from  himself  But  Mr.  Bizzell  did  not  respond  to  this 
proposition,  and  this  plan  failed,  and  then,  as  a  last  re.sort,  ne  fled.  He 
knew  that  Moore,  Purnell  and  Kelly  would  be  acquitted,  that  it  was  only  a 
question  of  time,  that  they  would  be  acquitted  because  they  were  not  guilty, 
and  then  he  would  be  arrested  and  confronted  by  K.  H.  Cole,  Capt.  Lockaray 
and  R.  F.  Devane,  who  would  identify  him  then;  that  Edgar  Gillespie  would 
tell  about  his  wasliing  at  his  house;  that  he  would  be  charged  with  making 
away  with  the  clothes;  that  Charlotte  Dumas  would  probably  tell  about 
seeing  him  at  Shandon  on  that  morning.  He  knew  the  whole  community 
Was  straight  on  his  track,  and  he  fled.  Counsel  tell  you  that  he  was  afraid 
of  being  h-nched.  He  was  the  only  person  that  ever  proposed  to  lynch  any- 
one, and  that  was  an  innocent  man.  His  (the  prisoner's)  friends  were  say- 
ing that  any  man  who  would  commit  so  foul  a  murder  ought  to  be  summa- 
rily , dealt  with,  and  he  fled.  Is  not  this  a  confession  ?  And  when  D.  D. 
Livingston  told  him  on  Friday  as  he  fled  that  he,  Livingstone,  would  be  one 
of  five  men  to  hang  the  murderer,  provided  he  was  sure  he  had  the  right 
man,  this  adds  to  his  speed. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  are  tired.  I  know  you  have  been  very  pa- 
tient in  this  investigation.  I  have  discussed  it  very  imperfectly,  I  know, 
because  I  too  am  worn  out  with  it.  It  is  an  important  and  a  solemn  matter 
which  you  have  to  settle  in  this  case,  and  no  counsel  could  overstate  the 
importance  of  it  to  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  and  to  the  community.  Poor 
Sim.  Conoley  was  murdered,  brutually,  outrageously  murdered,  innocent, 
unsuspecting  old  man  that  he  was,  led  from  his  house,  as  he  was,  and  shot 
down  and  butchered  by  an  assassin.  His  own  nephew  stands  charged  with 
the  crime — his  own  nephew,  when  charged  with  it,  fled,  changed  his  name — 
his  good  name,  and  disguised  himself  If  you  can,  in  the  face  ot  all  this  ev- 
idence, upon  30ur  oaths,  say  that  you  are  not  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  of  his  guilt,  why  acquit  him.  But  on  the  other  hand  you  have  a 
solemn  duty  to  perform  to  yourselves,  to  )'our  country  and  to  your  God. 
Do  it  faithfully;  do  it  right. 


184  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  McDougald. 


Judge  McIver's  Charge  to  the  Grand  Jury. 

Gentlemeti  of  the  Jury  : 

The  prisoner  at  the  Bar  is  indicted  for  the  murder 
of  one  Simeon  Conoley,  on  the  21st  day  of  April, 
1891,  in  the  County  of  Robeson. 

Slurder  is  the  felonious  slaying  of  any  reasonable 
creature  in  being  with  malice  aforethought,  express 
or  implied,  in  law.  If  the  killing  is  admitted,  or 
proved,  be3'ond  reasonable  doubt,  to  have  been  done 
with  a  deadly  weapon,  as  a  pistol,  the  law  implies 
the  malice.  It  devolves  upon  the  State  to  make 
STood  the  charge  to  the  exclusion  of  all  rational 
doubt.  The  law  presumes  that  the  accused  is  inno- 
cent, and  he  is  not  required  to  prove  anything,  and 
his  failure  to  offer  any  testimony  or  to  become  a 
- •  ; •: : ::<.-^::t 5-'  witucss  iu  hls  owu  bchalf,  as  he  might  have  done, 

JUDGE  JAMES  D.  MciVER,  the   law   says,  shall   not  create  any  presumption 
of  Carthage,  N.  c.  against  him,  and  shall  not  be  permitted  to  prejudice 

his  case  in  the  minds  of  the  jury,  the  entire  burden 
of  proof  of  guilt  being  on  the  State.  Proof  of  guilt  may  be  by  direct  and 
positive  testimony,  or  b}'^  circumstantial  testimonj^;  whatever  of  difference 
there  may  be  in  eliciting  direct  and  circumstantial  evidence,  the  conclusion 
reached  must  be  the  same;  both  alike  must  satisfy  the  minds  of  the  jury 
to  the  exclusion  of  every  reasonable  doubt.  This  is  the  test  of  the  sufl&- 
ciency  of  evidence,  whether  it  be  direct  and  positive  or  circumstantial:  if 
it  falls  short  of  this  test,  and  the  minds  of  the  jury  is  left  in  doubt  and  uncer- 
tairity,  the  prosecution  fails  and  the  accused  must  be  acquitted. 

You  are  instructed,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  where  a  conclusion  is  sought 
upon  circumstantial  evidence  alone,  as  in  this  case,  the  State  must  not  only 
show  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  alleged  facts  and  circumstances  are 
true,  but  they  must  be  such  facts  and  circumstances  as  are  natural,  reason-  . 
able,  clear  and  satisfactor}^  in  their  relations,  connections  and  combinations, 
and  incapable  of  explanation  upon  any  reasonable  hypothesis  other  than 
that  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused. 

You  are  instructed,  that  while  the  presence  of  a  motive  for  the  commis- 
sion of  the  offense  charged  is  a  legitimate  subject  of  inquiry,  it  is  not  an 
element  of  the  burden  of  proof  which  the  law  devolves  upon  the  prosecution; 
but  if  the  evidence  fails  to  show  any  motive  to  commit  the  crime  charged  on 
the  part  of  the  accused,  this  is  a  circumstance  which  the  jury  ought  to  con- 
sider in  favor  of  his  innocence. 

If  the  State  fails  to  prove  beyond  reasonable  doubt  any  one  fact  or  cir- 
cumstance necessary  and  material  to  form  the  chain  of  facts  and  circum- 
stances connecting  the  accused  with  the  commission  of  the  crime  charged, 
the  prosecution  fails  and  the  jviry  ought  to  acquit,  or  if  there  is  an}'  one 
single  fact  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury  which  is  inconsistent  with 
the  defendant's  guilt,  this  is  sufficient  to  raise  a  reasonable  doubt  and  the 
jury  should  acquit  the  defendant. 

If  the  jury  believe  the  testimony  of  any  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  in 
regard  to  it,  the  character  of  the  accused,  up  to  the  time  of  this  charge,  was 
above  reproach.  While  this  furnishes  no  excuse  for  crime,  it  is  a  fit  subject 
for  your  consideration  in  passing  upon  the  question  of  his  guilt  or  inno- 
cence. 

Circumstantial  evidence  is  legal  and  competent,  and  in  this  case,  if  it 
satisfies  you  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  and  to  the  exclusion  of  every  reason- 
able hypothesis  other  than  that  the  defendant  is  guilty,  it  is  3'our  duty  to 
say  from  your  verdict  that  the  defendant  is  guilty  in  manner  and  form  as 
charged  in  the  bill  of  indictment. 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley.  185 

But  if  upon  the  whole  case  your  minds  are  left  in  painful  anxiety,  doubt 
and  uncertainty  as  to  his  guilt,  it  will  equally  be  your  duty,  under  the  law, 
to  give  hira  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  and  say  he  is  not  guilty. 

[Judge  Mclver  at  this  point  gave  an  exhaustive  review  of  the  evidence, 
(which  is  published  in  the  first  part  of  the  book)  at  the  conclusion  of  which 
lie  said  :] 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  isthe  testimonj'  as  I  have  it.  It  is  in- 
tended simply  to  aid  you  in  recollecting  what  the  evidence  is;if  3"OU  remem- 
ber it  diflerentlj-  from  this,  why  3011  must  be  governed  b}'  jour  own  recol- 
lection, not  by  mine.  Now  from  this  evidence  the  State  says  that  it  has 
proved  facts  and  circumstances  that  lead  to  the  conclusion,  inevitably,  that 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  guiltj'  as  charged  in  this  bill  of  indictment.  It  is 
argued  to  j'ou  by  the  Solicitor  and  his  associates,  that  from  this  evidence  it 
has  been  proved  that  the  prisoner  in  the  first  place  had  a  motive  to  commit 
this  deed;  it  is  argued  to  you  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  had  an  opportunity 
to  commit  the  deed;  it  is  argued  to  you  that  the  prisoner  not  onlj'  had  a  mo- 
tive and  an  opportunit}',  but  that  he  did,  in  fact,  commit  this  deed.  It  is  in- 
sisted that,  some  time  during  the  month  of  September  of  last  year,  the  pris- 
oner procured  a  policy  of  insurance  upon  the  life  of  Simeon  Conoley,  the  de- 
ceased, of  $5,000,  to  be  is.sued,  and  it  is  argued  to  you,  from  the  testimony, 
that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  paid  the  premium  of  $239  on  the  20  jear  policy. 
It  is  insisted  that  the  prisoner  paid  this  premium,  and  that  soon  after  the 
issuing  of  this  policy  it  is  insisted  that  the  prisoner  attempted  to  take  the 
life  of  the  deceased,  Simeon  Conoley,  by  poison;  that  he  bought  candj',  took 
it  to  this  deceased  and  gave  him  the  candy,  and  a  few  minutes  after  eating 
the  candj'  he  was  taken  violently  sick,  the  symptoms  indicating  poiscn  by 
strychnine;  that  the  prisoner  told  Dr.  Prince  that  he  wanted  him  to  exam- 
ine this  candy;  that  a  tenant  of  his  had  been  poisoned  by  candy  that  he  had 
given  him.  It  is  argued  to  you  by  the  State  that  if  30U  believe  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Cobb  and  of  John  Conoley,  col.,  and  the  other  witnesses  who 
testify  in  regard  to  the  same  matter,  that  the  prisoner  was  seen  within  a 
mile  and  a-half  or  a  quarter  of  the  house  of  the  deceased  on  the  evening  of 
the  homicide  and  that  he  was  there  in  disguise. 

It  is  insisted  that  the  prisoner  left  Laurinburg  that  morning  on  the  6 
o'clock  train;  that  he  took  the  freight  train  on  the  C.  F.  &  Y.  V.  R.  R.  at  the 
water  tank  at  Maxton;  that  he  was  seen  there  bj'  ]Mr.  Cole,  by  Mr.  Phillips, 
and  by  a  colored  woman,  Lizzie  McCoy;  that  he  was  known  to  have  left  the 
water  tank  at  Maxton  on  the  freight  train,  that  he  was  seen  as  far  as  Red 
Springs;  that  he  paid  his  fare  as  far  as  Shandon;  that  soon  after  that  train 
pulled  up  at  Shandon,  or  soon  after  it  stopped,  a  strange  man  was  .seen  there 
jn  that  community,  going  by  Mr.  Cobb's;  that  he  was  disguised;  that  he 
wore  a  duster,  that  he  was  about  the  size  and  answered  to  the  description  of 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  If  jou  are  satisfied,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  man  who  got  on  at  the  tank  got  on  at  Shandon, 
was  .seen  in  disguise  going  bj*  Mr.  Smith's,  was  seen  in  disguise  within  a- 
quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  house  ot  the  deceased;  if  you  are  satisfied  be\'ond  a 
teasonable  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that  circumstance,  of  those  circumstances, 
you  are  sworn,  gentlemen  ofthejurj,  to  say  that  the  prisoner  committed 
this  deed. 

The  State  insists  that  the  next  morning  the  prisoner  was  seen  at  the 
house  of  Edgar  Gillespie,  some  14  miles  from  the  house  of  the  deceased; 
that  he  was  there  with  his  face  blacked;  that  he  went  to  the  house 
of  Edgar  Gillespie,  procured  water,  soap  and  a  towel  and  washed  his 
face;  that  Edgar  Gillespie  knew  him.  It  is  insisted  that  the  defendant  then 
went  to  Maxton;  that  he  made  a  false  statement  about  his  going  to  Wilming- 
ton and  back  the  same  day  and  night;  and  the  Solicitor  argues  to  30U  that 
in  addition  to  all  that,  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  soon  after  thi.s  charge 
began  to  be  circulated  against  him,  soon  after  it  began  to  be  known  that  the 
man  who  got  on  that  water  tank  was  the  man  who  committed  the  deed,  that 
the  prisoner  fled  from  a  sense  of  guilt.     The  State  argues  to  you  that  this 


186  The  Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald 

flight  was  from  a  sense  of  guilt;  that  the  fact  of  his  flight,  taken  in 
connection  with  other  circumstances,  fixes  the  guilt  upon  the  defendant 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  That,  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  the  con- 
tention on  the  part  of  the  State. 

But  the  prisoner  saj's,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  charge  against  him  is 
inconsistent  with  the  character  that  he  has  always  borne;  says  in  the  next 
place  that,  so  far  as  this  circumstance  is  concerned  of  his  having  left  Laurin- 
burg  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  and  going  to  Maxton,  while  that  is 
true,  that  he  did  leave  Laurinburg  and  go  to  Maxton,  he  says  it  is  not  true 
that  he  was  seen  at  the  water  tank  at  Maxton  on  that  day;  he  says  it  is  not 
true  that  he  went  to  Shandon  that  day;  he  says  it  is  not  true  that  he  was  the 
man  that  was  seen  in  disguise  going  on  the  Lumberton  and  Carthage  road 
by  Mr.  Cobb  and  Mr.  Smith.  He  argues  to  you  that  you  cannot  be  satisfied 
of  those  circumstances  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  because,  in  the  first  place, 
Mr.  Cole,  who  says  he  saw  him  at  Maxton,  gives  it  as  his  opinion  of  this 
man  that  he  is  not  pDsi':ive  about  it;  and  about  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Phil- 
lips, the  engineer  of  the  road,  that  Mr.  Phillips  was  mistaken  about  see- 
ing the  defendant  there  on  that  day,  the  21st,  because  he  says  he  went  there 
on  an  extra  freight  train,  and  it  is  argued  to  you  that  if  you  believe  the  tes- 
timony of  the  railroad  officials  here  in  this  place,  that  Mr.  Phillips  was  mis- 
taken as  to  the  day;  that  no  extra  train  went  out  on  that  day.  So  it  is  argued 
to  you  that  you  cannot  say  that  you  are  satisfied  bej'ond  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  the  man  who  got  on  at  the  tank  got  off  at  Shandon  and  was  seen  in  dis- 
guise near  the  house  of  Simeon  Conoley;  that  you  cannot  say  from  this  evi- 
dence, that  you  are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  that  was  the 
defendant.  That  so  far  as  the  motive  was  concerned,  it  is  insisted  on  the 
part  of  the  defendant  that  the  State  has  failed  to  show  any  motive.  They 
say  that  while  it  is  true  that  the  prisoner  paid  $239,  the  first  premium  upon 
this  policy,  that  while  he  did  that,  he  did  it  at  the  instance  of  his  uncle, 
Simeon  Conoley;  it  is  insisted  by  the  prisoner's  counsel  that  he  did  not  pro- 
cure the  issuing  of  this  policy;  it  is  insisted  that  even  if  he  did,  that  no  mo- 
tive could  possibly  spring  from  that,  because  the  policy  was  issued  to  Mar- 
garet E.  Conoley,  his  aunt,  who  had  a  child  13  or  14  years  old;  that  she  had 
a  mother  living,  that  she  had  two  sisters  living,  and  a  brother  living,  one  of 
the  sisters  being  the  mother  of  the  prisoner,  and  that  in  no  view  of  the  case 
could  the  prisoner  reap  atiy  benefit  from  that  policy.  That  is  the  argument 
of  the  prisoner's  counsel,  and  from  that  the  prisoner  argues  to  you  that  the 
State  has  failed  to  show  any  motive,  and  that  in  regard  to  the  poisoning  that 
took  place  a  short  time  after  that,  the  prisoner  argues  to  j^ou  that  there  is 
no  truth  in  that;  that  while  it  is  true  that  Simeon  Conolej'  was  taken  vio- 
lently sick,  possibly  from  eating  candy,  the  prisoner  denies,  through  his 
counsel,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  candij'  was  poisoned;  that  there  was  any 
strychnine  in  it,  because  it  was  said  that  if  it  had  any  strychnine  in  it  that 
the  deceased  Conoley  could  not  have  been  relieved  by  taking  an  emetic,  if 
you  believe  the  testimon}'  of  Dr.  Prince,  and  that  it  did  not  make  other 
parties  sick  who  ate  some  of  the  same  candy.  And  he  argues  to  you  further- 
more, that  if  there  was  poison  in  the  cand}-.  his  statement  about  it  and  his 
conduct  all  indicate  that  there  was  no  purpose  on  his  part,  because  they 
show  that  if  he  intended  to  poison  him  with  the  candy  no  one  knew  it  but 
himself,  and  he  is  the  first  and  only  man  who  told  that  the  deceased  had 
been  made  sick  by  eating  the  candy.  So  the  prisoner  argues  to  you  from 
that,  that  the  State  has  failed  to  show  any  motive  for  his  doing  this  act. 

The  State  argues  to  you,  as  I  told  you,  the  circumstance  of  the  pris- 
oner's flight;  if  j-our  are  satisfied  that  he  fled  from  a  sense  of  guilt,  that  is  a 
circumstance  that  the  jury  ought  to  consider  against  him.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  you  must  be  satisfied  that  flight  was  from  a  sense  of  guilt  and  not 
from  a  sense  of  fear.  The  prisoner  insists  that  he  fled  because  he  was  fear- 
ful that  he  would  be  lynched:  he  knew  a  great  crime  had  been  committed, 
people  were  incensed  about  it,  and  he  had  been  accused  by  a  man  by  thf 
name  of  Millard  Moore,  a  man  he  says  he  knew  to  be  a  desperate  man;  aii' 
according  to  the  testimony  he  told  his  father  that  he  had  been  accused  o 


I 


for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 


187 


that  thing  by  Millard  Moore  and  had  been  warned  by  Mr.  Duncan  E.  Mcs 
Bryde  that  Millard  Moore  would  saddle  that  thing  on  him  ifhedidnot 
mind,  and  knowing  the  character  of  Millard  Moore,  rather  than  get  into  9 
law  suit  with  him.  he  would  leave  the  country.  He  insists  that  is  why  he 
left. 

Now,  it  is  for  you  to  say,  you  must  be  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  he  left  through  a  sense  of  guilt;  he  says  that  he  left  through  fear, 
and  if  you  have  a  reasonable  doubt  upon  that  point  he  is  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  it.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  is  about  the  contention  of 
the  State  and  the  contention  of  the  prisoner,  and  it  is  for  you  to  say,  it  is 
for  the  jury  to  say.  It  has  been  argued  to  you  well  on  both  sides,  and  you 
have  been  told  of  the  great  magnitude  of  the  issue  upon  which  you  are  to 
pass;  it  is  a  momentous  issue,  not  only  to  the  prisoner  but  to  the  public, 
and  you  are  to  say  what  the  truth  of  the  matter  is.  The  State  says  that 
they  have  made  out  the  case  to  prove  such  facts  and  circum.stances  that  can 
not  be  explained  upon  any  reasonable  hypothesis  consistent  with  the  inno- 
cence of  the  accused.  The  defendant  insists  that  not  a  single  fact  or  circum- 
stance has  been  proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  ought  to  fix  guilt 
upon  him,  and  he  argues  to  you,  as  I  told  you  in  the  outset,  that  his  good 
name  and  his  good  character  ought  to  plead  for  him;  that  the  charge  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  character  of  the  man;  and  I  have  already  told  you  that 
while  a  good  character  is  no  excuse  for  crime,  that  this  is  a  circumstance, 
a  fit  subject  for  the  jury  to  consider,  in  passing  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  the  accused.  It  is  insisted  for  the  prisoner,  and  admitted, 
that  up  to  the  time  of  this  charge  his  character  was  above  reproach.  His 
counsel  say  to  you  now,  that  you  ought  to  consider  this  in  passing  upon  the 
question  of  his  guilt  or  innocence;  that  if  a  good  character  is  worth  any- 
thing, if  it  is  worth  living  for,  it  ought  to  avail  a  man  in  time  of  trial. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  I  stated  to  you,  it  is  purely  a  question 
of  fact  for  you  to  determine.  If  you  are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  the  prisoner  at  the  Bar  committed  thisgreat  crime,  it  is  your  solemn  duty 
to  say  so;  but  if  as  I  have  told  you,  upon  the  whole  case,  taking  all  the  facts, 
all  the  surroundings,  taking  the  whole  case,  if  your  minds  are  left  in  pain- 
ful anxiety  and  doubt  and  uncertainty  as  to  the  truth  of  this  matter,  then 
the  law  says  the  prisoner  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  doubt  and  you 
ought  to  acquit  him. 


At  the  conclusion  of  Judge  Mclver's  charge  the 
jury  retired  promptly  to  the  jur\'  room,  where  they 
remained  in  consultation  over  the  matter  until 
about  10  o'clock  that  night.  In  the  meantime  court 
had  been  adjourned,  the  Judge  remarking  to  Sheriff 
Smith,  as  he  left  the  court  room,  that  if  the  jury 
signified  its  readiness  to  render  a  verdict  on  or  be- 
fore ro  o'clock  to  have  him  summoned  from  the 
hotel  and  he  would  come  over  and  take  the  verdict 
that  night.  Failing  to  arrive  at  a  verdict  that 
night  the  jury  retired  about  10  o'clock  to  their 
quarters  in  the  Hotel  LaFayette,  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing morning  at  9:30  o'clock  rendered  a  verdict 
of  "not  guilty."  Thereupon  the  prisoner  D.  A. 
McDougald  was  released  from  custody  and  restored 
to  his  long-sought  freedom,  amid  the  joy  and  glad- 
ness of  his  friends  and  sympathizers. 

The  trial  from  the  beginning  was  indeed  a  most 
interesting  one,  lasting  from  Wednesday  morning, 
November  i8th,  to  Tuesday,  December  ist,  1891,  and  will  doubtless  go  down 


D.  A.  McDOUGALD, 

of  Lauriuburg,  N.  C. 


18S       Trial  of  D.  A.  MeDougald  for  the  Murder  of  Simeon  Conoley. 

■in  history  as  the  most  celebrated  case  ever  witnessed  in  the  State,  surpass- 
ing in  many  respects  the  famous  Ann  K.  Simpson  trial,  held  in  Fayetteville 
titout  forty  years  ago. 

Some  of  the  best  legal  talent  in  North  Carolina  was  employed  on  both 
sides,  and  people  flocked  hither  from  many  of  the  adjoining  counties  and 
Tor  many  miles  in  every  direction  to  watch  the  progress  of  the  proceedings, 
tiot  a  few  remaining  over  in  the  city  throughout  the  trial. 


W.  A.  CRAWFORD, 
Artist  Merchant  Tailor, 

FAYETTEVILLE,  N.  C. 

Always  keeps  on  hand  a  well-selected  stock  of  Foreign  Woollens  from  which 
to  select  Suitings  and  Pantaloons.  As  for  prices  and  fit  I  am  willing  to  com- 
pete with  anyone  in  my  line.  I  also  make  Cutting,  Cleaning  and  Repairing 
a  specialty.  My  Spring  and  Summer  Woolens  will  arrive  on  the  15th  of 
March.  Call  and  see  the  handsomest  line  of  goods  ever  brought  to  Fayette- 
ville. 

S^rl  cut  from  actual  measurement  system  of  the  new  age  and  guarantee 
satisfaction  in  ever\'  respect. 

Great  Slaughter  ot  Prices  for  Marble  and  Granite  Worl(. 

We  take  this  method  of  informing  the  public  that  we  have  the  largest  stock  of 
Finished  Monuments  and  Tal)lets  ever  brought  to  Fayetteville.  We  also  have  a  Qnincy 
Granite  Tablet,  which  is  something  new  here,  all  of  which  will  bo  sold  lower  than  ever 
before,  (^ill  and  see  us.  and  if  our  work  on  hand  does  not  suit  you  we  have  a  lot  of 
the  very  latest  designs,  both  in  Marble  and  Granite,  which  we  are  certain  will  please 
the  most  fastidious.  We  use  nothing  but  tirst-class  stock,  and  for  workmanship  we 
defy  competition.  Very  respectfully,  GOODWIN  .t  REMSHURG, 

CAROLINA  MACHINE  CO. 


MANUFACTURE 


Saw  Mill  Machinery 

:M:a,3se  SI  Specialt3r  of 

'^ Rebuilt"  Engines. 

<3-i"ve  I^ronnpt  attentiorL  tc  all 

Repair  Work. 

"^T^orl^s  annd.  Office, 

FAYETTEVILLE,  N.  C. 

THE  FAYETTEVILLE  OBSERVER, 

BY  Z.  W.  WHITEHEAD, 
Prints  the  News  and  is  Read  by  the  People.    Leading  Newspaper  iu  the  3rd  Congressional  and 

7th  Judicial  Districts. 
Z.  W.  WHITEHEAD  and  J.  II.  MYROVER,  Editors. 

(^\lQ  Pa^etfeOille  priniin|  and  publisl^ir\^  (J^o., 

FAYETTEVILLE,  N.  C, 

Prints  everything  and  is  patronized  by  everybody  who  desire  good  printing  at  reasonable  prices. 
*tti- Send  your  orders  to  them  for  "all  printing  wanted  Irom  a  Visiting  Card  to  a  Mammoth 
Foster  or  Book.    *»-Terms  always  cash. 


w,  J,  McDonald, 

WHOLESALE  DEALER  AND  JOBBER  IN 

LIQUORS,  WINES,  TOBACCO,  CIGARS  AND  SNUFF, 

CIGAR  AND  TOBACCONISTS'  GOODS, 

N.  W.  Cor.  Market  Square,  2  and  4  Green  Street, 

FAYETTEVILLE,  N.  C. 

jl  L 

JOB  LOTS  OF  — LARGE  LOTS  OF 


CIGARS  AND  TOBACCO 


A  SPECIALTY. 


Feeruaby  26,  IP" 


OLD  CORN  WHISKEY 


ON   HAND. 


Distillers'  /Igent  for  Pure  f.'oriii  Carolina,  Kentuclty  and  Maryland  Rye  Whisl(ies 

Larger  Stock  to  Select  'rom  than  any  10  houses  in  my  line 
in  Fayetteville. 

All  Cash  Orders  by  Mail  Receive  Prcmpt  Personal  Attention. 

SAMPLE  ROOM  IN  CONNECTION. 

ALSO, 

Manufacturer  of  McDonald's  Celebrated 
X.  T.  C.  COUCH  CURE. 

If  you  have  a  Cough,  Cold,  Grippe,  or  an}'  trouble  with  Throat,  Chest  or 

Lungs,  it  will  relieve  j-ou.     After  a  suflScient  trial,  if  it  does 

not,  your  mone}-  will   be  cheerfully  refunded. 

THIS  PREPARATION  CONTAINS  NO  OPIUM,  MORPHINE,  OR  ANY 
OTHER  INJURIOUS  DRUG. 


To  be  had  of  all  Druggists,  or  will  be  .sent  direct,  per  express,  on 
application. 

Two  Sizes,  50  Cents  and  $1.00  per  Bottle. 

W.  J.  IVIcDONALD. 


h 


Date  Due 


niir  1  1  "lii 

X*' 

Aula  A  X  3ij 

t* 

. 

^ 

• 

I. 



L.  D.  Cat.  No.  1137 


I^4%i 


\ij  4^rs 


CALL  NUMBER     (Vol 


( 


27073 


